The Political Perspective of the Democratic Socialists of America

[stephanie]

Table of Contents
Preamble
Section 1: Democracy, Liberty and Solidarity
Section 2: Democratic Control of Productive and Social Life
Section 3: The Global Economy, Global Politics and the State
Section 4: A Strategy for the Next Left
Section 5: The Role of Electoral Politics
Section 6: The Role of Democratic Socialists

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 4: A Strategy for the Next Left
Socialists have historically supported public ownership and control of the major economic institutions of society -- the large corporations -- in order to eliminate the injustice and inequality of a class-based society, and have depended on the the organization of a working class party to gain state power to achieve such ends. In the United States, socialists joined with others on the Left to build a broad-based, anti-corporate coalition, with the unions at the center, to address the needs of the majority by opposing the excesses of private enterprise. Many socialists have seen the Democratic Party, since at least the New Deal, as the key political arena in which to consolidate this coalition, because the Democratic Party held the allegiance of our natural allies. Through control of the government by the Democratic Party coalition, led by anti-corporate forces, a progressive program regulating the corporations, redistributing income, fostering economic growth and expanding social programs could be realized.

http://www.dsausa.org/about/where.html

Congressional Members of the
Progressive Caucus

Rep Earl Hilliard (AL-07)
Rep Eni Faleomavaega (AS-AL)
Rep Ed Pastor (AZ-02)
Rep Lynn C Woolsey (CA-06)
Rep George Miller (CA-07)
Rep Nancy Pelosi (CA-08)
Rep Fortney "Pete" Stark (CA-13)
Rep Henry A. Waxman (CA-29)
Rep Xavier Becerra (CA-30)
Rep Julian C. Dixon (CA-32)
Rep Esteban Edward Torres (CA-34)
Rep Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Rep George E. Brown (CA-42)
Rep Bob Filner (CA-50)
Rep Diane DeGette (CO-01)
Rep Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL)
Rep Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Rep Carrie P. Meek (FL-17)
Rep Alcee L. Hastings (FL-23)
Rep Cynthia A. McKinney (GA-04)
Rep John Lewis (GA-05)
Rep Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Rep Patsy Mink (HI-02)
Rep Jesse Jackson (IL-02)
Rep Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Rep Danny Davis (IL-07)
Rep Lane Evans (IL-17)
Rep Julia Carson (IN-10)
Rep John Olver (MA-01)
Rep Jim McGovern (MA-03)
Rep Barney Frank (MA-04)
Rep John Tierney (MA-06)
Rep David Bonior (MI-10)
Rep Lynn N. Rivers (MI-13)
Rep John Conyers (MI-14)
Rep Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02)
Rep Melvin L. Watt (NC-12)
Rep Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Rep Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Rep Major Owens (NY-11)
Rep Nydia M. Velazquez (NY-12)
Rep Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Rep Maurice Hinchey (NY-26)
Rep John LaFalce (NY-29)
Rep Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Rep Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Rep Louis Stokes (OH-11)
Rep Sherrod Brown (OH-13)
Rep Elizabeth Furse (OR-01)
Rep Peter A. DeFazio (OR-04)
Rep Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Rep William Coyne (PA-14)
Rep Carlos A. Romero-Barcelo (PR-AL)
Rep Robert C. Scott (VA-03)
Rep Bernard Sanders (VT-AL)
Rep James A. McDermott

Should add on this list..

Hillary Clinton
Barak Obama

[stephanie]

By Simon, published on November 2nd, 2007
A new green political movement is growing that see the climate crisis as a revolutionary possibility to create a new world, a new world based on Eco-socialism.

In September 2001 a meeting regarding socialism and ecology was held outside of Paris in France. Two of the participants, Joel Kovel and Michael Lowy wrote an ecosocialistic manifesto.

The manifesto called for like-minded to getting together started to take form the 7-8th October when about 60 participants from around the world created the Ecosocialist International Network.

Snip:
Thus the stark choice once posed by Rosa Luxemburg returns: Socialism or Barbarism!, where the face of the latter now reflects the imprint of the intervening century and assumes the countenance of ecocatastrophe, terror counterterror, and their fascist degeneration.

http://green-blog.org/2007/11/02/an-ecosocialist-manifesto/

[No_Socialism]

Obama knows these guys quite well:

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=12070

[April15]

It is nice to know some one that can tell me what I think and doesn't even have to be in my presence. We have been doing the same thing since rr and expecting different results. It is time to change from a screw you I got mine society.

[diuretic]

It's coming. Capitalism is in a deep crisis. While on balance it's been good it's now outlived its usefulness. A new form of socialism, one that isn't chained by the past, is required if humans are going to progress as a species.

[theHawk]

It's coming. Capitalism is in a deep crisis. While on balance it's been good it's now outlived its usefulness. A new form of socialism, one that isn't chained by the past, is required if humans are going to progress as a species.

A "new" form of socialism. Please. Socialism has always failed and always will fail. Our government is going bankrupt already because of the many socialist programs we already have.

[gabosaurus]

I shall consider the source :rolleyes:

[avatar4321]

It's coming. Capitalism is in a deep crisis. While on balance it's been good it's now outlived its usefulness. A new form of socialism, one that isn't chained by the past, is required if humans are going to progress as a species.

What a scary thought.

[diuretic]

A "new" form of socialism. Please. Socialism has always failed and always will fail. Our government is going bankrupt already because of the many socialist programs we already have.

Your government may be going bankrupt but it's probably the war in Iraq that's doing the bankrupting rather than the domestic programmes it may run.

As for socialism having failed. Be specific, tell me where and explain why.

As for socialism failing in the future, if you've got that crystal ball going can you get me the Lotto numbers for this Saturday night please?

[diuretic]

What a scary thought.

That socialism saves humanity and our planet?

[April15]

It's coming. Capitalism is in a deep crisis. While on balance it's been good it's now outlived its usefulness. A new form of socialism, one that isn't chained by the past, is required if humans are going to progress as a species.I think you are right.

[Austin.Texas]

The problem is not capitalism, but rather PREDATORY capitalism. We have allowed corporations to take over the powers of government that should belong to individuals.
This is something that the Founders and great Presidents, Republican and Dem. , have been warning us against since the 18th century.
Second point: There are many instances where I see an attack on "socialism", where it turns out that the attack is actually on democracy, and a promotion of corporatism.

[Austin.Texas]

Are Predatory Capitalism and Democracy Compatible?
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2008/02/18/p23417

[5stringJeff]

The problem is not capitalism, but rather PREDATORY capitalism. We have allowed corporations to take over the powers of government that should belong to individuals.
This is something that the Founders and great Presidents, Republican and Dem. , have been warning us against since the 18th century.
Second point: There are many instances where I see an attack on "socialism", where it turns out that the attack is actually on democracy, and a promotion of corporatism.

Welcome to the board, from a native Texan! :texflag:

Out of curiosity, exactly which governmental powers do you see now in the hands of corporations?

[JohnDoe]

Welcome to the board, from a native Texan! :texflag:

Out of curiosity, exactly which governmental powers do you see now in the hands of corporations?
Well, gvt deregulation lead to the subprime crisis and now the gvt is bailing them out for their scams and lack of business sense that was a result of the abuse of the deregulation?


Could that be one?

jd

[Austin.Texas]

Out of curiosity, exactly which governmental powers do you see now in the hands of corporations?
When the pharm. companies write legislation which prohibits the government from negotiating better prices for drugs, who is running things?
When the Feds prohibit California from passing the smog laws they want, who is running things?
When Dick Cheney gets together with his oil buddies in a secret meeting, and plans an attack on Iraq, in order to control their oil production, and uses our military to accomplish their profit-driven agenda (which is treason), who is controlling things?

[Kathianne]

When the pharm. companies write legislation which prohibits the government from negotiating better prices for drugs, who is running things?
When the Feds prohibit California from passing the smog laws they want, who is running things?
When Dick Cheney gets together with his oil buddies in a secret meeting, and plans an attack on Iraq, in order to control their oil production, and uses our military to accomplish their profit-driven agenda (which is treason), who is controlling things?

You do have links to all these issues, right? I mean you're not assuming that 'everyone knows' this?

[5stringJeff]

Well, gvt deregulation lead to the subprime crisis and now the gvt is bailing them out for their scams and lack of business sense that was a result of the abuse of the deregulation?


Could that be one?

jd

Government deregulation may have led to the subprime crisis, only in the sense that deregulation made it easier for people to get loans, which they subsequently couldn't afford. But that's not the government's fault - that's the government getting out of the way and allowing market transactions to occur.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with the Fed's actions in regards to Bear Stearns. In one respect, it quickened the death of Bear Stearns. OTOH, I'm not comfortable with the Fed having that much control over how much of Bear Stearn's risk I (the taxpayer) should assume.

[5stringJeff]

When the pharm. companies write legislation which prohibits the government from negotiating better prices for drugs, who is running things?
When the Feds prohibit California from passing the smog laws they want, who is running things?
When Dick Cheney gets together with his oil buddies in a secret meeting, and plans an attack on Iraq, in order to control their oil production, and uses our military to accomplish their profit-driven agenda (which is treason), who is controlling things?


You do have links to all these issues, right? I mean you're not assuming that 'everyone knows' this?

I, too, would like to see your proof about these things.

However, off the top of my head, President Bush is disallowing drugs to be sold in (or reimported to) America that haven't been FDA approved. That one has little, if anything, to do with the pharmecutical (sp?) companies.
And, as to California's smog laws: Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. The courts believe (and rightly so, IMO) that California's new regulations were a usurpation of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.

[Austin.Texas]

Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. The courts believe (and rightly so, IMO) that California's new regulations were a usurpation of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce.
It is remarkable how the power is invoked to protect the interests of the corporations who opposed those restrictions. I can't think of any examples where that has happened the other way around, can you?

[April15]

Unrestrained capitalism!


Op-Ed Columnist
Partying Like It’s 1929


Article Tools Sponsored By
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: March 21, 2008

If Ben Bernanke manages to save the financial system from collapse, he will — rightly — be praised for his heroic efforts.


Paul Krugman.
Times Topics: United States Economy

But what we should be asking is: How did we get here?

Why does the financial system need salvation?

Why do mild-mannered economists have to become superheroes?

The answer, at a fundamental level, is that we’re paying the price for willful amnesia. We chose to forget what happened in the 1930s — and having refused to learn from history, we’re repeating it.

Contrary to popular belief, the stock market crash of 1929 wasn’t the defining moment of the Great Depression. What turned an ordinary recession into a civilization-threatening slump was the wave of bank runs that swept across America in 1930 and 1931.

This banking crisis of the 1930s showed that unregulated, unsupervised financial markets can all too easily suffer catastrophic failure.

As the decades passed, however, that lesson was forgotten — and now we’re relearning it, the hard way.

To grasp the problem, you need to understand what banks do.

Banks exist because they help reconcile the conflicting desires of savers and borrowers. Savers want freedom — access to their money on short notice. Borrowers want commitment: they don’t want to risk facing sudden demands for repayment.

Normally, banks satisfy both desires: depositors have access to their funds whenever they want, yet most of the money placed in a bank’s care is used to make long-term loans. The reason this works is that withdrawals are usually more or less matched by new deposits, so that a bank only needs a modest cash reserve to make good on its promises.

But sometimes — often based on nothing more than a rumor — banks face runs, in which many people try to withdraw their money at the same time. And a bank that faces a run by depositors, lacking the cash to meet their demands, may go bust even if the rumor was false.

Worse yet, bank runs can be contagious. If depositors at one bank lose their money, depositors at other banks are likely to get nervous, too, setting off a chain reaction. And there can be wider economic effects: as the surviving banks try to raise cash by calling in loans, there can be a vicious circle in which bank runs cause a credit crunch, which leads to more business failures, which leads to more financial troubles at banks, and so on.

That, in brief, is what happened in 1930-1931, making the Great Depression the disaster it was. So Congress tried to make sure it would never happen again by creating a system of regulations and guarantees that provided a safety net for the financial system.

And we all lived happily for a while — but not for ever after.

Wall Street chafed at regulations that limited risk, but also limited potential profits. And little by little it wriggled free — partly by persuading politicians to relax the rules, but mainly by creating a “shadow banking system” that relied on complex financial arrangements to bypass regulations designed to ensure that banking was safe.

For example, in the old system, savers had federally insured deposits in tightly regulated savings banks, and banks used that money to make home loans. Over time, however, this was partly replaced by a system in which savers put their money in funds that bought asset-backed commercial paper from special investment vehicles that bought collateralized debt obligations created from securitized mortgages — with nary a regulator in sight.

As the years went by, the shadow banking system took over more and more of the banking business, because the unregulated players in this system seemed to offer better deals than conventional banks. Meanwhile, those who worried about the fact that this brave new world of finance lacked a safety net were dismissed as hopelessly old-fashioned.

In fact, however, we were partying like it was 1929 — and now it’s 1930.

The financial crisis currently under way is basically an updated version of the wave of bank runs that swept the nation three generations ago. People aren’t pulling cash out of banks to put it in their mattresses — but they’re doing the modern equivalent, pulling their money out of the shadow banking system and putting it into Treasury bills. And the result, now as then, is a vicious circle of financial contraction.

Mr. Bernanke and his colleagues at the Fed are doing all they can to end that vicious circle. We can only hope that they succeed. Otherwise, the next few years will be very unpleasant — not another Great Depression, hopefully, but surely the worst slump we’ve seen in decades.

Even if Mr. Bernanke pulls it off, however, this is no way to run an economy. It’s time to relearn the lessons of the 1930s, and get the financial system back under control.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/21/opinion/21krugman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Austin.Texas]

When the pharm. companies write legislation which prohibits the government from negotiating better prices for drugs, who is running things?

H.R. 4 - Requiring Medicare to Negotiate Lower Prescription Drug Prices
This bill repeals the current provisions that prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices
http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0007

Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), along with Reps. Marion Berry (D-Ark.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), on Tuesday reintroduced legislation that would require the federal government to negotiate prices directly with pharmaceutical companies for medications under the Medicare prescription drug benefit, CongressDaily reports. The bill would allow Medicare to establish a formulary that would give HHS leverage in negotiations. Durbin said, "Under current law, Medicare beneficiaries are stuck with confusing, costly plans designed by insurance and drug companies. What seniors deserve is an affordable, straightforward drug benefit."
...about $40 billion could be saved through a government-led drug negotiation program.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86591.php

[Kathianne]

H.R. 4 - Requiring Medicare to Negotiate Lower Prescription Drug Prices
This bill repeals the current provisions that prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices
http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0007

Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), along with Reps. Marion Berry (D-Ark.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), on Tuesday reintroduced legislation that would require the federal government to negotiate prices directly with pharmaceutical companies for medications under the Medicare prescription drug benefit, CongressDaily reports. The bill would allow Medicare to establish a formulary that would give HHS leverage in negotiations. Durbin said, "Under current law, Medicare beneficiaries are stuck with confusing, costly plans designed by insurance and drug companies. What seniors deserve is an affordable, straightforward drug benefit."
...about $40 billion could be saved through a government-led drug negotiation program.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86591.php

Who wrote the law that they are hoping to repeal? Seems Jeff answered about the CA smog law. What about this, got a link:
When Dick Cheney gets together with his oil buddies in a secret meeting, and plans an attack on Iraq, in order to control their oil production, and uses our military to accomplish their profit-driven agenda (which is treason), who is controlling things?

[Austin.Texas]

Who wrote the law that they are hoping to repeal?

That is a great question. I would love to see a special prosecutor appointed to dig into exactly who and how a provision so contrary to the interests of the American people made it into law.
It isn't too very hard to figure where the trail will lead, is it?

[5stringJeff]

It is remarkable how the power is invoked to protect the interests of the corporations who opposed those restrictions. I can't think of any examples where that has happened the other way around, can you?

Does it matter whether "corporations" supported or opposed the new regulations? It's unconstitutional, regardless of corporate support.

Also, corporations are not anti-American or 'evil' entities. They look out for their best interests, just like you and I look out for our best interests.

[5stringJeff]

H.R. 4 - Requiring Medicare to Negotiate Lower Prescription Drug Prices
This bill repeals the current provisions that prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices
http://www.speaker.gov/legislation?id=0007

Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), along with Reps. Marion Berry (D-Ark.) and Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), on Tuesday reintroduced legislation that would require the federal government to negotiate prices directly with pharmaceutical companies for medications under the Medicare prescription drug benefit, CongressDaily reports. The bill would allow Medicare to establish a formulary that would give HHS leverage in negotiations. Durbin said, "Under current law, Medicare beneficiaries are stuck with confusing, costly plans designed by insurance and drug companies. What seniors deserve is an affordable, straightforward drug benefit."
...about $40 billion could be saved through a government-led drug negotiation program.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/86591.php

So in your opinion, which is worse: that the Secretary of HHS can't renegotiate drug prices with pharm companies, or that the government subsidizes prescription drug use in the first place - in essence, taking taxpayer money and handing it over to "Big Pharma," so seniors don't have to pay so much for drugs?

The small-government answer is to get rid of the prescription drug benefit part of Medicare.

[5stringJeff]

That is a great question. I would love to see a special prosecutor appointed to dig into exactly who and how a provision so contrary to the interests of the American people made it into law.
It isn't too very hard to figure where the trail will lead, is it?

I'm pretty sure it happened like this (http://clerkkids.house.gov/laws/index.html).

[Kathianne]

So in your opinion, which is worse: that the Secretary of HHS can't renegotiate drug prices with pharm companies, or that the government subsidizes prescription drug use in the first place - in essence, taking taxpayer money and handing it over to "Big Pharma," so seniors don't have to pay so much for drugs?

The small-government answer is to get rid of the prescription drug benefit part of Medicare.

:clap::clap:

[Austin.Texas]

The small-government answer is to get rid of the prescription drug benefit part of Medicare.
We could change the subject to discuss the role of government in providing for the life, liberty, happiness, and general welfare of the citizens, but it would detract from the trhead, which is the inordinate power over our government which the corporations currently have, much to our detriment.

[Kathianne]

We could change the subject to discuss the role of government in providing for the life, liberty, happiness, and general welfare of the citizens, but it would detract from the trhead, which is the inordinate power over our government which the corporations currently have, much to our detriment.

If you are talking lobbying groups, it's the way the system is set up. It's Congress that writes the laws. As Jeff pointed out, it wasn't the fed interfering with CA, rather CA acting as if they were the Fed-ICC.

The serious problem currently in the US is not corporate control of the government, rather the inverse. The problem is not contained to the Fed alone, like CA the states are imposing more and more controls, along with taxes.

[Austin.Texas]

It's Congress that writes the laws.
That is an interesting answer. Especially interesting that you deny the problem exists.
by the way, it is Congress which passes the laws, the question of who wrote the law which was passed by Congress is the problem.

Here are some involved:


Billy Tauzin, who shepherded the drug bill through when he was a member of Congress, now heads the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the all-powerful industry lobby group, for an estimated $2 million a year. In his new job, he's making novel arguments against allowing Americans to buy cheaper drugs from Canada: Al Qaeda, he suggests, might use fake Viagra tablets to get anthrax into this country.

Meanwhile, Thomas Scully, the former Medicare administrator - who threatened to fire Medicare's chief actuary if he gave Congress the real numbers on the drug bill's cost - was granted a special waiver from the ethics rules. This allowed him to negotiate for a future health industry lobbying job at the very same time he was pushing the drug bill.

If all this sounds like a story of a corrupt deal created by a corrupt system, it is. And it was a very expensive deal indeed. According to the Medicare trustees, the fiscal gap over the next 75 years created by the 2003 law - not the financing gap for Medicare as a whole, just the additional gap created by legislation passed 18 months ago - will be $8.7 trillion.
http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/05/06.php

The pharmaceutical industry has joined the Bush White House in vigorously opposing lower prices through negotiations—and already has launched a massive lobbying and PR campaign aimed at the Senate, which will take up the bill soon. Drug industry lobbyists have buttonholed lawmakers, especially newly elected members, according to news reports.

This month alone, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhARMA) spent more than $1 million on full-page newspaper ads touting the success of the existing Medicare drug system, according to The Washington Post. Further:

Drug companies spent more on lobbying than any other industry between 1998 and 2005—$900 million, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. They donated a total of $89.9 million in the same period to federal candidates and party committees, nearly three-quarters of it to Republicans.

The money spent on the campaign against requiring Medicare to negotiate drug prices is a drop in the bucket compared with what Big Pharma could rake in under the status quo. According to The New York Times:

For big drug companies, the new Medicare prescription drug benefit is proving to be a financial windfall larger than even the most optimistic Wall Street analysts have predicted.

Last fall, a report from House Democrats showed drug manufacturers’ profits increased by more than $8 billion in the first six months after the Medicare drug plan went into effect.

In a letter to House members urging passage of the bill, William Samuel, AFL-CIO legislative director, wrote:

Negotiating Medicare drug prices makes sense and is perfectly consistent with program reimbursement for all other health care services, including hospital and physician services. Furthermore, the Department of Veteran Affairs and state Medicaid programs use their buying power to negotiate lower drug prices than those available to Medicare beneficiaries.

While profits soar, it’s the seniors who pay the price.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/01/12/first-100-hours-house-votes-to-require-medicare-to-negotiate-drug-prices/

[5stringJeff]

Amendment 1:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Say what you will about lobbying, corporate or otherwise, it's a protected right. Or would you rather that Congress was completely unresponsive to the will of the people?

[Austin.Texas]

Say what you will about lobbying, corporate or otherwise, it's a protected right. Or would you rather that Congress was completely unresponsive to the will of the people?
OK, now we are getting somewhere...
There are a couple of serious problems with your answer. First, the Constitution grants the right to "the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Note that last word - PEOPLE.
Churches, unions, lobbyists, and corporations do not have the vote. Why not? In the case of corporations it is because they are not people. They are a business construct - an imaginary thing which exists on paper, just like paper money not backed by gold. So for you to maintain the the lobbying of a corporation is protected by the Constitution turns out to be dead wrong - because you want to defend our right to petition and you extend that right to an imaginary being not protected by the Constitution.
Second, as for Congress being unresponsive to the will of the people, The people's will is being overwhelmed by the millions of dollars spent by the corporations, And you know as well as I that millions of that money is not spent legally - it is spent on bribes and other illegal means of influence. What chance does a group of people have to get their government to respond to their needs, when their resources add up to only a fraction of the money spent by special interests?
Let's not confuse the people of this country with the business interests, which have their own agenda, and not the good of the country, as their goal, and let's not assign rights to them which are not theirs.

[Kathianne]

OK, now we are getting somewhere...
There are a couple of serious problems with your answer. First, the Constitution grants the right to "the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Note that last word - PEOPLE.
Churches, unions, lobbyists, and corporations do not have the vote. Why not? In the case of corporations it is because they are not people. They are a business construct - an imaginary thing which exists on paper, just like paper money not backed by gold. So for you to maintain the the lobbying of a corporation is protected by the Constitution turns out to be dead wrong - because you want to defend our right to petition and you extend that right to an imaginary being not protected by the Constitution.
Second, as for Congress being unresponsive to the will of the people, The people's will is being overwhelmed by the millions of dollars spent by the corporations, And you know as well as I that millions of that money is not spent legally - it is spent on bribes and other illegal means of influence. What chance does a group of people have to get their government to respond to their needs, when their resources add up to only a fraction of the money spent by special interests?
Let's not confuse the people of this country with the business interests, which have their own agenda, and not the good of the country, as their goal, and let's not assign rights to them which are not theirs.

What do you think corporations are? Do you have a 401k? Are you employed within an 'industry'?

What are you speaking about regarding the bolded? Like Boeing? What happened with them again? LOL! Now coming from Chicago and the Rezko trial, I am familiar with graft and bribes. Which one of our candidates has the looming problem?

[Austin.Texas]

What do you think corporations are?
They are a business construct - an imaginary thing which exists on paper, just like paper money not backed by gold.
If you want to learn more about the legal status of corporations, and why they are not to be granted the rights that we have as citizens, please read Thom Hartmann's brilliant book, Unequal Protection: The rise of corporate dominance and theft of human rights

In Unequal Protection, author Thom Hartmann tells a compelling, can't-put-it-down story that tracks the history of the loss of democracy in America. It starts with the birth of the modern corporation with the founding of the East India Company in 1600, through the Boston Tea Party revolt against transnational corporate domination of the early American economy, the rise of corporations during the Civil War, the ultimate theft of human rights before the Supreme Court in 1886, and into the modern-day theft of human rights in the US and worldwide by corporate interests and the politicians they own.
http://www.thomhartmann.com/unequalprotection/

[5stringJeff]

OK, now we are getting somewhere...
There are a couple of serious problems with your answer. First, the Constitution grants the right to "the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." Note that last word - PEOPLE.
Churches, unions, lobbyists, and corporations do not have the vote. Why not? In the case of corporations it is because they are not people. They are a business construct - an imaginary thing which exists on paper, just like paper money not backed by gold. So for you to maintain the the lobbying of a corporation is protected by the Constitution turns out to be dead wrong - because you want to defend our right to petition and you extend that right to an imaginary being not protected by the Constitution.
Second, as for Congress being unresponsive to the will of the people, The people's will is being overwhelmed by the millions of dollars spent by the corporations, And you know as well as I that millions of that money is not spent legally - it is spent on bribes and other illegal means of influence. What chance does a group of people have to get their government to respond to their needs, when their resources add up to only a fraction of the money spent by special interests?
Let's not confuse the people of this country with the business interests, which have their own agenda, and not the good of the country, as their goal, and let's not assign rights to them which are not theirs.

All businesses, corporations or otherwise, are established by people, run by people, and employ people. So when a corporation (or union, for that matter) lobbies, they do so in the name of their members, who are part of "the people."

[Austin.Texas]

All businesses, corporations or otherwise, are established by people, run by people, and employ people. So when a corporation (or union, for that matter) lobbies, they do so in the name of their members, who are part of "the people."
So why do corporations and unions not have the vote? That is not a flippant response. I want you to think about it. There is, legally, a difference. Even tho a church or corporation is made up of people, not all rights that the people have as citizens extent to the organization, the church or corporation. As a matter of fact, churches have some rights people don't have! And corporations have some rights that people don't have. And by the same token, people have some rights that corporations don't have - and the petition clause of the Constitution is one of them.

[Kathianne]

So why do corporations and unions not have the vote? That is not a flippant response. I want you to think about it. There is, legally, a difference. Even tho a church or corporation is made up of people, not all rights that the people have as citizens extent to the organization, the church or corporation. As a matter of fact, churches have some rights people don't have! And corporations have some rights that people don't have. And by the same token, people have some rights that corporations don't have - and the petition clause of the Constitution is one of them.

Ok, your point regarding the topic is what? Spell it out. What is it you want to see happen?

[Austin.Texas]

What I want to see happen is for the people of the country to have the power to control what the government does, just as Thomas Jefferson envisioned it. The power of corporations to undermine democracy has to be diminished, because it has resulted in a government which is much less responsive to the people than it should be.
I really have an extreme view that only individual citizens should be able to lobby, donate, or participate in government, That means no unions, no corporations, no churches, no foreign interests, noone can be involved except individual citizens, as described in the Constitution. We have to take back our democracy for ourselves.
I realize that many of those special interests that I have listed can make a case for their inclusion, but every exception that is made will dilute the power of the people themselves.

[MtnBiker]

noone can be involved except individual citizens, as described in the Constitution.


"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Do individuals assemble or does a group of people assemble?

[Austin.Texas]

Do individuals assemble or does a group of people assemble?
Is a corporation a group of people?

maybe this will help
The Corporation: The Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power (Hardcover)
by Joel Bakan

Bakan, an internationally recognized legal scholar and professor of law at the University of British Columbia, takes a powerful stab at the most influential institution of our time, the corporation. As a legal entity, a corporation has as its edict one and only one goal, to create profits for its shareholders, without legal or moral obligation to the welfare of workers, the environment, or the well-being of society as a whole. Corporations have successfully hijacked governments, promoting free-market solutions to virtually all of the concerns of human endeavor. Competition and self-interest dominate, and other aspects of human nature, such as creativity, empathy, and the ability to live in harmony with the earth, are suppressed and even ridiculed. Bakan believes that, like Communism, this ideological order cannot last and that corporate rule must be challenged to bring balance and revive the values of democracy, social justice, equality, and compassion. This eye-opening look at a system "programmed to exploit others for profit" has been made into a provocative film documentary that could be the next Bowling for Columbine. David Siegfried
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved
http://www.amazon.com/Corporation-Pathological-Pursuit-Profit-Power/dp/0743247442

[Austin.Texas]

Is a corporation a person, or a group of people? The California Supreme Court says "No"


While Nike was conducting a huge and expensive PR blitz to tell people that it had cleaned up its subcontractors' sweatshop labor practices, an alert consumer advocate and activist in California named Marc Kasky caught them in what he alleges are a number of specific deceptions. Citing a California law that forbids corporations from intentionally deceiving people in their commercial statements, Kasky sued the multi-billion-dollar corporation.

Instead of refuting Kasky's charge by proving in court that they didn't lie, however, Nike instead chose to argue that corporations should enjoy the same "free speech" right to deceive that individual human citizens have in their personal lives. If people have the constitutionally protected right to say, "The check is in the mail," or, "That looks great on you," then, Nike's reasoning goes, a corporation should have the same right to say whatever they want in their corporate PR campaigns.

They took this argument all the way to the California Supreme Court, where they lost. The next stop may be the U.S. Supreme Court in early January, and the
battle lines are already forming.

For example, in a column in the New York Times supporting Nike's position, Bob Herbert wrote, "In a real democracy, even the people you disagree with get to have their say."

True enough.

But Nike isn't a person -- it's a corporation. And it's not their "say" they're asking for: it's the right to deceive people.

http://www.ratical.org/corporations/humanVcorp.html

[MtnBiker]

I realize that corporations have been brought up in this thread, however in my question I made no mention of corporations.

So, I will ask again.

Do individuals assemble or does a group of people assemble?

The question could be approached in a different way.

How is it possible for only an individual citizen to assemble?

After all it is your view that only individuals can be involved;



I really have an extreme view that only individual citizens should be able to lobby, donate, or participate in government, That means no unions, no corporations, no churches, no foreign interests, noone can be involved except individual citizens, as described in the Constitution.

[Austin.Texas]

Do individuals assemble?

It seems that what you are trying to get at, in a round-about way, is that the people have a right to assemble, and then would be a group, and then, as a group, would have the right to petition...
Point taken.
So, as I said before, the groups I listed can make a case for their inclusion, but every exception that is made will dilute the power of the people themselves.
At this point, my ideological desire for all of the power of the government to reside in the individuals may come down to how someone chooses to define "assemble".

[MtnBiker]

At this point, my ideological desire for all of the power of the government to reside in the individuals may come down to how someone chooses to define "assemble".

Not how "someone" chooses to define "assemble", rather how "assemble" is universally recognized. Therefore it is your charge (if you want your point of view validated) to convince universally that "assemble" is a function of a single individual.

It is important to recognize that the word "people" is used in the first admendment not the word "person". People being plural, person being singular as in an individual.

[JohnDoe]

I realize that corporations have been brought up in this thread, however in my question I made no mention of corporations.

So, I will ask again.

Do individuals assemble or does a group of people assemble?

The question could be approached in a different way.

How is it possible for only an individual citizen to assemble?

After all it is your view that only individuals can be involved; the right of the people to assemble, is an individual right....as with ALL RIGHTS given to us, the people, in the bill of rights and all unamed rights as well.

an example of 1 person assembling....an individual holding a sign right outside of the business or gvt building they object to....

someone holding a sign on a street corner in protest of something...

that's how i take it...you can individually do such.

jd

[Dilloduck]

the right of the people to assemble, is an individual right....as with ALL RIGHTS given to us, the people, in the bill of rights and all unamed rights as well.

an example of 1 person assembling....an individual holding a sign right outside of the business or gvt building they object to....

someone holding a sign on a street corner in protest of something...

that's how i take it...you can individually do such.

jd


I can also get together with other people and do the same thing. The Constitution says I can. I don't have to be a lone protester.

[diuretic]

The Founding Fathers were probably very aware of the vicious laws in England in the 18th century prohibiting all sorts of gatherings and rejected the idea that any polity could refuse the right of assembly (peaceful assembly, not riot).

[Yurt]

Do individuals assemble?

It seems that what you are trying to get at, in a round-about way, is that the people have a right to assemble, and then would be a group, and then, as a group, would have the right to petition...
Point taken.
So, as I said before, the groups I listed can make a case for their inclusion, but every exception that is made will dilute the power of the people themselves.
At this point, my ideological desire for all of the power of the government to reside in the individuals may come down to how someone chooses to define "assemble".

can GWB assemble?

if not, why not.

[diuretic]

Can disassemble though :laugh2:

[Yurt]

Can disassemble though :laugh2:

aussies rule :cheers2:

[MtnBiker]

an example of 1 person assembling....an individual holding a sign right outside of the business or gvt building they object to....

someone holding a sign on a street corner in protest of something...

that's how i take it...you can individually do such.

jd

An example of 1 individual assembling, ok that is good. However Austin.Texas is making a claim that only individuals should be able to petition the government. Is the act of assembling exclusive to the individual?

And I will ask again, How is it possible for only an individual citizen to assemble?

[JohnDoe]

An example of 1 individual assembling, ok that is good. However Austin.Texas is making a claim that only individuals should be able to petition the government. Is the act of assembling exclusive to the individual?

And I will ask again, How is it possible for only an individual citizen to assemble? ok, I was not following what was going on between you and Austin....

An individual can assemble themselves...(put themselves together) but this is NOT what the first amendment is speaking to... :) The right of the people to assemble, taking assemble as gathering together in a peaceful manner to protest or rejoice in something on public grounds, can be done individually too...this is what I was trying to say....it gave the individuals the right to gather together to VOICE their opinions or concerns....so not only does the INDIVIDUAL have the right to free speech on the public street corner, but INDIVIDUALS gathering together have that same right.

There are actually 2 parts to this that are separate clauses being joined together I think?

The right to peacefully assemble.

and the right to petition one's gvt for a redress of grievances.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Assembling and petitioning for a redress of grievances are different things.

Only individuals have the RIGHT to petition our government...a person or persons have to be involved...or hurt.

Individuals of a corporation may be able to come together to sue/petition the gvt....not some "office headquarter building" that would be bringing suit but individuals of that corp on behalf of the owners that were hurt imo.

jd

[PostmodernProphet]

An example of 1 individual assembling, ok that is good. However Austin.Texas is making a claim that only individuals should be able to petition the government. Is the act of assembling exclusive to the individual?

And I will ask again, How is it possible for only an individual citizen to assemble?

I think you are looking at this wrong......it is possible (and constitutionally protected) that EVERY individual citizen may assemble....to gather together with any other individual citizen to discuss whatever they want to discuss free from the government interference....

I suppose by extension it is also proper that such an assembled group of individual citizens might hire a spokesman to go to the government and state their grievances....

however, I suspect our current situation of paid lobbiests waving campaign contributions is a far cry from what the founders anticipated.....

[JohnDoe]

Government deregulation may have led to the subprime crisis, only in the sense that deregulation made it easier for people to get loans, which they subsequently couldn't afford. But that's not the government's fault - that's the government getting out of the way and allowing market transactions to occur.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with the Fed's actions in regards to Bear Stearns. In one respect, it quickened the death of Bear Stearns. OTOH, I'm not comfortable with the Fed having that much control over how much of Bear Stearn's risk I (the taxpayer) should assume.
If you truely believe in "deregulation" for businesses and trust in them not to screw over their shareholders and screw over the public in order for them to become more profitable, quickly or earn a big bonus quickly, then the government should NEVER, EVER bail these businesses out or get involved at all, and let the chips fall where they may....

otherwise, these corps will take HIGH RISKS that they should never take, IRRESPONSIBLE for them to take...gvt deregulation permitted the high risks to be taken....then it should be at the Company's own risk....no bail outs ever....and if it is a stock market crash because the gvt didn't come in to help, then as said....so be it....

What I described is a FREE MARKET, which the deregulation movement is a part of.... and if you "deregulate" and allow a free for all to do as they please, then you must ALLOW the negative consequences to occur too...in order for businesses to learn from thier high risks through SUFFERING.

We should not have to bail out a company or a business sector with our eventual tax monies if we can not regulate, to reduce our chances of having to bail them out of the high risk, irresponsible, business choices they made in order to make a quick buck and enhance their own personal pockets, disregarding their share holders future and livelyhood.

would we spin in to a recession faster or would the market have even deeper drops if the gvt did not stick their nose in to it? YES, probably yes...but THAT is a free market that is "deregulation", irresponsibly deregulated imo.

And also Jeff, don't you think that there were plenty of ways to get more people in to homes responsibly, with business sense, than what just happened?

IT WAS VERY POOR BUSINESS SENSE....to do what these companies did...

And may I remind YOU, that these corps are responsible to their shareholders to make good, calculated, business decisions....there are so many things, simple things that they did wrong Jeff....MANY, MANY, MANY!

They should have limited their high risk subprime loans to a small amount of their overall business to limit their company's risk to begin with... so that if every high risk sub prime loan they gave out went belly up or in to foreclosure, their company would still survive and do well....these high risk areas are to make an added percent or 2 to your bottom line if they work.....they are not and should not have been a core business and let the other more secure loans fall by the wayside.

They should have had SOME requirements for the people taking out the loans, to show proof that they can afford it when it adjusts, some proof of working, some proof of indebtiveness thus far in their lives etc and the companies should have assessed the risks and come up with regulations of THEIR OWN to guide them in who they give these loans out to....not just to anybody, anywhere, at anytime....

They should have had some disclosure to the people borrowing, showing them what their payments would rise to also....and shown them what these laons really meant, regarding refinancing to a conventional and what that would entail and also what can go wrong wshould have been a WARNING....like I said, simple disclosure to these folks could have stopped alot of these loans too...


I don't know....I think there is a happy medium of regulation and deregulation that can be met, but a total free market is too risky in this day and age of greed imo....


OH! Happy Easter! :)
jd

[Austin.Texas]

I will grant that some of the groups or organizations that exist might have the right to claim the right of petition, in spite of my wishes to limit it.
However, there is one point that I have been making in this thread, and that is - corporations are not one of those groups. Corporations are not an assembly of citizens. That was the point that I have been making.
You can note above that the California Supreme Court agreed with me.

[diuretic]

But in legal terms, corporations are "individuals". And that is the trick. A damn fine trick perpetrated on all of us I might add.

[JohnDoe]

I will grant that some of the groups or organizations that exist might have the right to claim the right of petition, in spite of my wishes to limit it.
However, there is one point that I have been making in this thread, and that is - corporations are not one of those groups. Corporations are not an assembly of citizens. That was the point that I have been making.
You can note above that the California Supreme Court agreed with me.

Not yet....wait till it gets to this batch of SC Justices, it would probably be a split decision in favor of the Corps! :(

I don't disagree with you or Diuretic....the allowance of Corps as individuals with individual rights is a scam and was a scam.... imho.

I think Petition the gvt for grievances is not necessarily Lobbying, but petition for grievances is a suit against them if they harmed you...or a request for compensation? Am I wrong on that...? anyone???? lol

jd

[Kathianne]

I figured I could find something, try this:

http://www.ou.edu/special/albertctr/extensions/fall2006/Loomis.pdf


From the Framing to the Fifties:
Lobbying in Constitutional and Historical Contexts
Burdett Loomis
University of Kansas
From the very beginning of the American experiment, lobbying has proven simultaneously central and
suspect to our politics. Steeped in their knowledge of legislative politics from state assemblies and the
Continental Congress, the framers of the Constitution had ample first-hand experience of the pressures that
particular interests, like farmers, merchants, and churches, could place upon them. They appreciated both the
virtues of petition and the unseemly potential for corrupt bargains between legislators and even loosely
organized interests....

James Madison: Framer, Theorist, Lobbyist
If, in drafting the Constitution, James Madison had consciously sought to create a governmental
system that would encourage – indeed dictate – that lobbying would become central to policymaking, he
could have scarcely done a better job than he did in devising the check-and-balances system that continues to
thrive 220 years after he penned his first draft. With the separation of powers and federalism, Madison and his
allies generated multiple venues for those who would surely seek to influence public policy decisions....

[Austin.Texas]

JohnDoe

the allowance of Corps as individuals with individual rights is a scam and was a scam....
dead right, jd

wikipedia
As juristic persons, corporations have certain rights that attach to natural purposes. The vast majority of them attach to corporations under state law, especially the law of the state in which the company is incorporated – since the corporations very existence is predicated on the laws of that state. A few rights also attach by federal constitutional and statutory law, but they are few and far between compared to the rights of natural persons. For example, a corporation has the personal right to bring a lawsuit (as well as the capacity to be sued) and, like a natural person, a corporation can be libeled.

But a corporation has no constitutional right to freely exercise its religion because religious exercise is something that only "natural" persons can do. That is, only human beings, not business entities, have the necessary faculties of belief and spirituality that enable them to possess and exercise religious beliefs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation

The Corporations are attempting to take the rights of citizens in order to influence the government, and that theft of rights is very damaging to our democracy.

[Kathianne]

There are times I'm simply amazed at people that do not have a basic understanding of our system of government. It's like they've not been culturally indoctrinated.

http://www.polisci.ccsu.edu/trieb/InfluGov.html


Lobbying

Direct Lobbying

Direct lobbying involves meeting with representatives, senators, or their staffs--or with members of the executive branch, and trying to inform them of your point of view and hopefully getting them to act in a way you would like. In the case of representatives and senators, this usually means getting a bill passed or amended, or getting a bill killed so it does not become a law. With members of the executive branch, it usually means getting regulations written the way you would prefer, or seeing to it that new regulations are not adopted. Lobbying is protected under the First Amendment in the right "to petition the government for redress of grievances" clause.

Anyone can lobby, but usually corporations, labor unions, and public interest groups are among the most active doing so. Usually corporations and trade associations have the most money by far to put into lobbying efforts. Groups that wish to lobby either hire their own people to do so, or use the services of special lobbying firms--often Washington law firms serve a primary lobbying function.

In lobbying, it is important to be in contact with the legislators and executive branch members you wish to lobby on a long-term basis. This pays off in developing a personal relationship with those you wish to lobby. Lobbying on an ad hoc, issue-by-issue basis is far less effective. One advantage that corporations have in lobbying over public interest groups is that they can hide many of their lobbying activities as ordinary business expenses, while public interest groups usually must report all their lobbying activities.

There are basically three functions served by a lobbyist:

1. To inform the government about the industry or cause for which you are lobbying and of the stance those for whom you are lobbying are taking;
2. To inform those who hire you of potential govehttp://debatepolicy.com/images/editor/separator.gifrnment actions which are likely to affect them. These may include pending legislation, pending regulations, and upcoming hearings which are to be heard on topics of interest to those for whom you work;
3. To try to convince the legislator, staff member, or administrator to make decisions favorable to your employer's industry or point of view.

Some see lobbying as playing an important informational and communications role. Others suggest that, because of their great resources, corporations are so much better equipped to lobby than are other groups and so the balance is always very much in favor of large corporations....

You don't have to like it; I don't like folks burning flags or calling for fragging of officers; but the right is there. Certainly we are all free to try and change things we disagree with.

[Joe Steel]

You do have links to all these issues, right? I mean you're not assuming that 'everyone knows' this?

Why shouldn't they.

It's been old news for years.

[JohnDoe]

There are times I'm simply amazed at people that do not have a basic understanding of our system of government. It's like they've not been culturally indoctrinated.

http://www.polisci.ccsu.edu/trieb/InfluGov.html



You don't have to like it; I don't like folks burning flags or calling for fragging of officers; but the right is there. Certainly we are all free to try and change things we disagree with.


But Kathianne, do you like it and the way this has been interpreted as a right for them covered under the Bill of Rights?

I can understand that Lobbying has always been around and a practice long accepted and a means that the congress has forever seen as a necessity to be informed, especially in the day and age that they resided in...

But I personally do not see where "lobbying" is a God Given right in the Bill of Rights for corporations....it is not spelled out? Or point to where it is spelled out and I will research it....

I see that in the first amendment we have the right to Petition our government for the redress of Grievances, NOT to Lobby our politicians for tax payers money to help their company be more profitable and things like this...???? you know???

I just don't understand what the SC was thinking, making this a constitutional right as they have done for the corporations, or something similar... I don't SEE IT in our constitution, in the petition our government for a redress of grievances clause....?

Though maybe it is in the right to free speech clause of the 1st, but then you are giving a Corporation made up of Companies a "Right to fib and exagerate and deceive their patrons", no?

I think you have said that you studied the Constitution or taught a class in it at one time....can you briefly fill me in? What am I missing? :)

jd

[Kathianne]

But Kathianne, do you like it and the way this has been interpreted as a right for them covered under the Bill of Rights?

I can understand that Lobbying has always been around and a practice long accepted and a means that the congress has forever seen as a necessity to be informed, especially in the day and age that they resided in...

But I personally do not see where "lobbying" is a God Given right in the Bill of Rights for corporations....it is not spelled out? Or point to where it is spelled out and I will research it....

I see that in the first amendment we have the right to Petition our government for the redress of Grievances, NOT to Lobby our politicians for tax payers money to help their company be more profitable and things like this...???? you know???

I just don't understand what the SC was thinking, making this a constitutional right as they have done for the corporations, or something similar... I don't SEE IT in our constitution, in the petition our government for a redress of grievances clause....?

Though maybe it is in the right to free speech clause of the 1st, but then you are giving a Corporation made up of Companies a "Right to fib and exagerate and deceive their patrons", no?

I think you have said that you studied the Constitution or taught a class in it at one time....can you briefly fill me in? What am I missing? :)

jd

JD, I earlier posted a link and blurb regarding Madison and the Federalist Papers. Do I think that the state should control/regulate corporations? No or at least as little as possible. Do I believe corporations work for the betterment of society, certainly not directly. Do I think they do things that should bring lawsuits? Some and individuals, as well as the government have the right to do so.

Unregulated would some out of greed put the shareholders at risk? See your examples, yes. But it's the nature of owning stock that is the risk, for good and bad.

Seriously, both individuals and corporations need to act responsibly and care for their wealth.

[5stringJeff]

If you truely believe in "deregulation" for businesses and trust in them not to screw over their shareholders and screw over the public in order for them to become more profitable, quickly or earn a big bonus quickly, then the government should NEVER, EVER bail these businesses out or get involved at all, and let the chips fall where they may....

otherwise, these corps will take HIGH RISKS that they should never take, IRRESPONSIBLE for them to take...gvt deregulation permitted the high risks to be taken....then it should be at the Company's own risk....no bail outs ever....and if it is a stock market crash because the gvt didn't come in to help, then as said....so be it....

What I described is a FREE MARKET, which the deregulation movement is a part of.... and if you "deregulate" and allow a free for all to do as they please, then you must ALLOW the negative consequences to occur too...in order for businesses to learn from thier high risks through SUFFERING.

We should not have to bail out a company or a business sector with our eventual tax monies if we can not regulate, to reduce our chances of having to bail them out of the high risk, irresponsible, business choices they made in order to make a quick buck and enhance their own personal pockets, disregarding their share holders future and livelyhood.

would we spin in to a recession faster or would the market have even deeper drops if the gvt did not stick their nose in to it? YES, probably yes...but THAT is a free market that is "deregulation", irresponsibly deregulated imo.

And also Jeff, don't you think that there were plenty of ways to get more people in to homes responsibly, with business sense, than what just happened?

IT WAS VERY POOR BUSINESS SENSE....to do what these companies did...

And may I remind YOU, that these corps are responsible to their shareholders to make good, calculated, business decisions....there are so many things, simple things that they did wrong Jeff....MANY, MANY, MANY!

They should have limited their high risk subprime loans to a small amount of their overall business to limit their company's risk to begin with... so that if every high risk sub prime loan they gave out went belly up or in to foreclosure, their company would still survive and do well....these high risk areas are to make an added percent or 2 to your bottom line if they work.....they are not and should not have been a core business and let the other more secure loans fall by the wayside.

They should have had SOME requirements for the people taking out the loans, to show proof that they can afford it when it adjusts, some proof of working, some proof of indebtiveness thus far in their lives etc and the companies should have assessed the risks and come up with regulations of THEIR OWN to guide them in who they give these loans out to....not just to anybody, anywhere, at anytime....

They should have had some disclosure to the people borrowing, showing them what their payments would rise to also....and shown them what these laons really meant, regarding refinancing to a conventional and what that would entail and also what can go wrong wshould have been a WARNING....like I said, simple disclosure to these folks could have stopped alot of these loans too...


I don't know....I think there is a happy medium of regulation and deregulation that can be met, but a total free market is too risky in this day and age of greed imo....


OH! Happy Easter! :)
jd

I'm not saying that all lending companies acted in the best manner. I'm not saying they acted with the best business sense. And I'm not saying they should be bailed out. I'm only saying that I understand why the Fed decided to act why they did. Actually, the more I think about it, the more I think Bear Stearns ought to have been allowed to fail on its own, without Fed intervention.

And while we may not agree about the appropriate measure of regulation in the market, Happy Easter!! :)