Time to consider "Worst Administration Ever"?

[onan]

Yes it is true that Wall St and Washington DC collude to rip us of and have together ruined the country.  Everything in my post is still accurate.

Here are a few reasons I emphasized the governments role in my post:

- It's the government that ultimately writes the checks, passes the laws, and writes the regulations - not Wall St.  Yes they buy influence, but it's the politicians that say yes or no to it.  The government officials are ultimately responsible.  Having said that I'd like to see all the crooks on Wall St and all the politicians in DC who have abused their authority rounded up and thrown in prison.

- Too many people believe that Wall St is responsible for all of it.  That's what we hear from the media and from the politicians themselves.  This mentality is probably what sank the very mediocre Romney and returned the loathsome Obama to the Presidency (the worst of 2 evils).  So the role of the politicians needs to be more widely circulated than it has been.

- The next step, after convincing everyone that Wall St alone is responsible for the corruption and the ruined economy, is to push for bigger government, more taxes, more rules, more intrusion into our lives.  Which is exactly the wrong conclusion that should be drawn, leading to more destructive policy.

- Since it is ultimately government officials writing the checks and passing the laws - and these are people we can collectively fire as citizens - this is the only area where we can make the necessary changes.  And thus should be our focus.

Government has been bought and sold by big business. Energy companies have succeeded in placing corporate shills into leadership of many regulatory agencies. Big Pharma has bought legislation to favor how medications are purchased for military hospitals and helped write laws regarding pricing; and made it illegal to purchase medications outside the US. The list goes on.

[PB the Deplorable]

Government has been bought and sold by big business. Energy companies have succeeded in placing corporate shills into leadership of many regulatory agencies. Big Pharma has bought legislation to favor how medications are purchased for military hospitals and helped write laws regarding pricing; and made it illegal to purchase medications outside the US. The list goes on.

Well sure, but who made those appointments, who passed that legislation?   Surprisingly, it's mostly entrenched career politicians - and some newer ones who have learned quickly.  People that we can actually vote out.   

It's up to law enforcement or boards of directors to remove corrupt business management, but the voters are responsible for corrupt politicians.

I think we are talking in circles.  I'm suggesting the way to address this is to vote better people in to hopefully pass better legislation and make better appointments. 

Some stiff fines, stripped pensions, and harsh prison sentences would set the tone nicely - business management, lobbyists and officials, politicians and their staffs.  Make the corruption not only not pay, but be very costly. 



My main point is that the Media's message, and the Government Party's message seems to be 'business has corrupted politics, so lets give the politicians more power', and I'm pointing out that's the wrong message and wrong response.


Edited

[onan]

Well sure, but who made those appointments, who passed that legislation?   Surprisingly, it's mostly entrenched career politicians (and their staffs) - and some newer ones who have learned quickly.  People that we can actually vote out and replace.   

I think we are talking in circles.  I'm suggesting the way to address this is to vote better people in to hopefully pass better legislation and make better appointments. 



My main point is that the Media's message, and the Government Party's message seems to be 'business has corrupted politics, so lets give the politicians more power', and I'm pointing out that's the wrong message and wrong response.

I see your point. I guess my point of view is voting people in will not change until we take money out of the equation. At this point politicians and extremely wealthy/powerful people dosey doe positions so much there is no difference.

But If I have to draw a line it begins with the authority to regulate businesses. When a business does not need a publicily supported infrastructure or does not need access to publicly owned resources I am willing to consider less regulation.

[Juan]

Controlling people seek high office in both government and business.  Many switch between the two.  A study a few years ago found little difference between politicians and sociopaths - I suspect business executives would be the same.  It's not government or Wall Street - it's the sociopathic personalities who run those organizations. 

[Yorkshire pud]

Controlling people seek high office in both government and business.  Many switch between the two.  A study a few years ago found little difference between politicians and sociopaths - I suspect business executives would be the same.  It's not government or Wall Street - it's the sociopathic personalities who run those organizations.

I can't remember where or who wrote it; but a study in the UK suggested the brain of top flight business people to be indistinguishable to that of psychopaths. Make of that what you will. 

[Sardondi]

From the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Report on IRS targeting of conservative groups: IRS officials thought Obama wanted crackdown on tea party groups, worried about negative press. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/report-irs-staff-acutely-aware-tea-party-antipathy/

IRS employees at all levels "were 'acutely' aware in 2010 that President Obama wanted to crack down on conservative organizations and were egged into targeting tea party groups by press reports mocking the emerging movement, according to an interim report being circulated Tuesday by House investigators."

What a surprise.

[NowhereInTime]

From the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Report on IRS targeting of conservative groups: IRS officials thought Obama wanted crackdown on tea party groups, worried about negative press. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/report-irs-staff-acutely-aware-tea-party-antipathy/

IRS employees at all levels "were 'acutely' aware in 2010 that President Obama wanted to crack down on conservative organizations and were egged into targeting tea party groups by press reports mocking the emerging movement, according to an interim report being circulated Tuesday by House investigators."

What a surprise.

Great reporting by the Washington Post!  Oh, wait that's not the Post.  Great reporting by the New York Times!  Oh, not the New York Times... the Washington Times?!?
It must be unimpeachable!  After all, it's not like the paper was founded by a felon!  Oh, wait, it was.  I should know; the good Rev. Moon spent a year living one town over from me at Danbury FCI for false tax returns.
That article isn't worth the paper it's printed on.  "Egged on"?  Is that even a journalistic term?
Bottom line - any cons go to jail?  No.  Any cons have their freedom of speech suppressed by body armored cops? No. Were we spared hours upon hours of conservative action groups advertising like mad to dissuade us from voting for Hussein?  Heavens, no.
Is, was, and will the IRS be a source of nagging irritation for all of us?  YES.  YOU ARE NOT ALONE.

[Sardondi]

Great reporting by the Washington Post!  Oh, wait that's not the Post.  Great reporting by the New York Times!  Oh, not the New York Times... the Washington Times?!?
It must be unimpeachable!  After all, it's not like the paper was founded by a felon!  Oh, wait, it was.  I should know; the good Rev. Moon spent a year living one town over from me at Danbury FCI for false tax returns.
That article isn't worth the paper it's printed on.  "Egged on"?  Is that even a journalistic term?
Bottom line - any cons go to jail?  No.  Any cons have their freedom of speech suppressed by body armored cops? No. Were we spared hours upon hours of conservative action groups advertising like mad to dissuade us from voting for Hussein?  Heavens, no.
Is, was, and will the IRS be a source of nagging irritation for all of us?  YES.  YOU ARE NOT ALONE0

Then it's not going to be difficult at all for you to completely destroy the veracity of the article. Please - it will be a simple matter for you to prove that the Committee's report does not in fact say what the WT says it does.

[NowhereInTime]

Then it's not going to be difficult at all for you to completely destroy the veracity of the article. Please - it will be a simple matter for you to prove that the Committee's report does not in fact say what the WT says it does.

Well, yes.  Unless you agree to the veracity of the WHOLE article, including this paragraph you may have missed:


"In the report, the investigators do not find evidence that IRS employees received orders from politicians to target the tea party, and agency officials deny overt bias or political motives."



Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/17/report-irs-staff-acutely-aware-tea-party-antipathy/#ixzz2fGd5QkIM
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Plus, the only place on the web I could find this story was in an op-ed by Karl Rove in May 13 2013 edition of the WSJ where he mentions something about the IRS scandal tied into Benghazi:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324767004578484783289409270.html

You were a federal prosecutor.  Does "acutely aware" rise to the level of reasonable doubt?  How would you have proven it?  The article you cite flat out stating there's no evidence anyone at the IRS was ordered to bother the tea party applicants should have been proof enough for you against malicious intent. 
And again, I ask you, was anyone arrested?  Harrassed in any real, legally defined way (you know what I mean)?  Was anyone's right to free speech abridged?  The resounding answer is NO. 

[Sardondi]

Well, yes.  Unless you agree to the veracity of the WHOLE article, including this paragraph you may have missed:
"In the report, the investigators do not find evidence that IRS employees received orders from politicians to target the tea party, and agency officials deny overt bias or political motives."....

Ah, well, that settles that, eh? You're playing dumb. And how were those directions going to be passed? By memo? Email? Or in face-to-face meetings, classically deniable, with the tax-exempt unit heads Lois Lerner (157 visits to the White House), or Sarah Hall Ingram (165 visits to the White House), or even the IRS Commissioner himself, Douglas Shulman (at least 118 visits to the Obama White House)? This is a staggering number of visits, and is unprecedented for IRS personnel to visit the White House this many times. You remember Lerner - she took the 5th Amendment when asked why she visited the White House and what she knew about targeting conservative groups for punitive IRS treatment. She had earlier tried the whopper that the plot started with IRS employees in Cincinnati, but even the pet media wouldn't swallow one that big. It's now clear that somehow, magically, the plot to illegally target conservative groups began around the same time, all across the nation. 

It's Beyond Beleef to think, at a very minimum, that the program to use the IRS as a tool of political punishment, wasn't known by everyone in the chain of upper command in the Administration, up to and including the Oval Office. To know that and do nothing? Almost inconceivable. Just that is a violation of the Constitution and the Oath of Office. But more and more evidence is coming out weekly that the orders came from the White House itself.  And pretending it isn't so won't change that fact.

So, in essence you're method of disproving the article I cited is to say, "It's all circumstantial." That's weak, man. You know, there's nothing at all wrong in admitting the IRS scandal looks bad. In fact, it would give you a good deal of credibility. Unlike being a True Believer who fights every allegation. 

[NowhereInTime]

...Beyond Beleef  ...

So, in essence you're method of disproving the article I cited is to say, "It's all circumstantial." That's weak, man. You know, there's nothing at all wrong in admitting the IRS scandal looks bad. In fact, it would give you a good deal of credibility. Unlike being a True Believer who fights every allegation. 

No, the IRS looks sloppy as hell. If this were a Dem-chaired committee I'd be red-faced, but this is Darrell Issa's Gov't Oversight Committee investigators making the formal statement.  Is there anyone more hellbent to embarass BHO than Issa (except maybe BHO himself, of late)?  Even a political novice or anyone who's seen him on Maher would know its his mission:

http://oversight.house.gov/release/oversight-subpoenas-treasury-for-irs-targeting-documents/
(direct from Congressman Issa's website - a very thorough demand for records)

If there was a real crime here, wouldn't somebody somewhere have Woodward & Bernstein'ed it by now?  In the age of the internet, do you mean a conservative leaning individual in the IRS couldn't have wiki-leaked some suspicious docs? Especially here in the wanna-be celebrity culture wouldn't someone have come forward for their whistleblower 15 minutes?
When the best we've seen is the WT reporting on "egged" and "acutely aware", it just doesn't hold up.  Especially again when no one's rights were actually abridged. 

[Juan]

Why are you so obsessed with the messenger?

It's just like I explained to my right-wing friends when they were celebrating Bush getting all this power - one day someone you don't agree with will hold high office, then look out for your side.

[NowhereInTime]

Why are you so obsessed with the messenger?

I'm sorry I do not understand.  For me it's really the message I question. I don't think 'Bam's in the institutional harassment business.

[Sardondi]

Cocooning.
We learned in April that the NYT is the only paper that the man who holds the position which used to be known as "Most Powerful Man In The Free World" (which title is, at least for the time being, laughably obsolete). http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112906/where-obama-staff-veterans-are-working-2013

Now we learn in the new book, The Message,by MSNBC.com editor Richard Wolffe, Obama's lone paper readership is because he is obsessed with what is said about him in what used to be known as the "paper of record". But it's worse than that, because it isn't the articles Obama is reading - it's the columnists. Obama is obsessed with what the NYT columnists say about him to the point that if something negative comes out in the NYT columns, he calls meetings. Just get a load of this from HuffoPo about Wolffe's book:

"In his book, Wolffe describes how after each negative Times editorial, 'the president would summon his communications team to discuss the critical coverage." (emphasis supplied [urlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/new-york-times-obama-syria_n_3949419.html?utm_hp_ref=mediaurl] Think about that: a nasty NYT editorial is cause for a meeting of the "communication team". When you can make the President dance to your tune, you're running the country.

We see in the same article Obama went back and forth with the Times Editorial Board, changing his Syria policy as he went. Dear God, help us.

Astounding. National policy by editorial board. Looks like we're going to have to change the tittle "Most Powerful Person In The Free World" from the US President to the Jill Abramson, New York Times executive Editor. After all, she's clearly calling the shots.

[PB the Deplorable]

I'm sorry I do not understand.  For me it's really the message I question. I don't think 'Bam's in the institutional harassment business.

Wishing something doesn't make it so. 

If you don't 'think' Obama is in the institutional harassment business, what is your explanation for the hundreds of White House visits by the very same IRS operatives now taking the 5th in front of Congress instead of testifying on this very issue - harassment of the President's opponents?

How is it this person rose to the top of the most corrupt political machine in the country without using the very tactics they excel in?  Why would he be extremely proficient with - and so eager to use - every thuggish Alinsky tactic, except institutional harassment?

Why deny the obvious?  This administration, or any other, has no business meeting with the IRS hundreds of times. And then stonewalling us when we want to know why.

[NowhereInTime]

Cocooning.
We learned in April that the NYT is the only paper that the man who holds the position which used to be known as "Most Powerful Man In The Free World" (which title is, at least for the time being, laughably obsolete). http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112906/where-obama-staff-veterans-are-working-2013

Now we learn in the new book, The Message,by MSNBC.com editor Richard Wolffe, Obama's lone paper readership is because he is obsessed with what is said about him in what used to be known as the "paper of record". But it's worse than that, because it isn't the articles Obama is reading - it's the columnists. Obama is obsessed with what the NYT columnists say about him to the point that if something negative comes out in the NYT columns, he calls meetings. Just get a load of this from HuffoPo about Wolffe's book:

"In his book, Wolffe describes how after each negative Times editorial, 'the president would summon his communications team to discuss the critical coverage." (emphasis supplied [urlhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/18/new-york-times-obama-syria_n_3949419.html?utm_hp_ref=mediaurl] Think about that: a nasty NYT editorial is cause for a meeting of the "communication team". When you can make the President dance to your tune, you're running the country.

We see in the same article Obama went back and forth with the Times Editorial Board, changing his Syria policy as he went. Dear God, help us.

Astounding. National policy by editorial board. Looks like we're going to have to change the tittle "Most Powerful Person In The Free World" from the US President to the Jill Abramson, New York Times executive Editor. After all, she's clearly calling the shots.

This was demoralizing to learn this.  It wouldn't bother me so much if he pulled in opinion makers from the WSJ or The Economist or WAPO as well as the Times people.  Just to flesh ideas out face to face, or even just to hear rationale behind opinions from which he could glean insight.  This is clearly about vanity and the "Legacy", which means very little for the country.

[NowhereInTime]

Wishing something doesn't make it so.   
If you don't 'think' Obama is in the institutional harassment business, what is your explanation for the hundreds of White House visits by the very same IRS operatives now taking the 5th in front of Congress instead of testifying on this very issue - harassment of the President's opponents?

How is it this person rose to the top of the most corrupt political machine in the country without using the very tactics they excel in?  Why would he be extremely proficient with - and so eager to use - every thuggish Alinsky tactic, except institutional harassment?

Why deny the obvious?  This administration, or any other, has no business meeting with the IRS hundreds of times. And then stonewalling us when we want to know why.

You're right, wishing it doesn't make it so. 

If Darrell Issa can't make it stick, after how many subpoenas and hearings then it really is nothing more than a phantom.  Stonewalling?  Of course.  Issa's on witch hunt after witch hunt (if they weren't so partisan I wouldn't mind the number of hearings he held - keep the bureaucracy accountable, but do it in an objective fashion, like hammering IRS for making dance videos.)

As for the IRS meetings with the administration, the President or the COS or DCOS could have three a day if he so desires; he's the President.  Do I think there was a game afoot? I don't know, maybe.  But from what I've seen in life between Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes, and Karl Rove, these "Alinsky" tactics are no more than a bit of mud in the eye.  I'm still pissed about Willie Horton and Swift Boats helping to decide national elections, so I really don't give these "Alinsky" complaints any weight.

[onan]

As for the IRS meetings with the administration, the President or the COS or DCOS could have three a day if he so desires; he's the President.  Do I think there was a game afoot? I don't know, maybe.  But from what I've seen in life between Lee Atwater, Roger Ailes, and Karl Rove, these "Alinsky" tactics are no more than a bit of mud in the eye.  I'm still pissed about Willie Horton and Swift Boats helping to decide national elections, so I really don't give these "Alinsky" complaints any weight.

Brilliant

[PB the Deplorable]

...  I'm still pissed about Willie Horton and Swift Boats helping to decide national elections, so I really don't give these "Alinsky" complaints any weight.

The R's told the truth about Dukakis and Kerry.  Alinsky rules are the dirtiest of dirty tricks.  So a bit of a difference.  But I get it, the end justifies the means.  If you're proud of that, then go for it.



By the way, this week Nancy Pelosi is out lying about Farrakhan, er, Obama being a 'Centrist'.  Nancy Pelosi is a local politician for me, so I've seen her career close up.  I think everyone would agree she is a proud 'Progressive' and extremely partisan.

She detests anyone that doesn't agree with her on every point. And now she's out trying to tell us one of theirs - Obama - is really one of ours, and that we should support him.  Obama is really a Centrist.  And Nancy Pelosi is good with that.  Sheesh.  Last week she was out lying about not really wanting to be Speaker again.


All these scandals are 'phony scandals'.  But Obama is going to do a 'full investigation' on each one.


If their policies weren't complete failures, we'd all vote for them too.  They wouldn't have to lie about who they are and what they have planned - but that isn't the case.  That's some party you guys have there.

[West of the Rockies]

Hey, Paperboy... regarding your post immediately above this one, don't you think you could substitute names from the Republican party and end up with pretty much the same complaint?  Couldn't I call Tom Delay (and his pay-for-play tactics) a dirty politician?  (Keep in mind that those on the left will never believe Delay wa anything but a dirty pol, just like you feel that way about Pelosi.)  Nowhere and Onan suggest that Issa is partisan.  You can say otherwise till the cows come home, but you won't convince those of us on the left that he's not. 

And not much good comes from saying something like, "Well, you just won't face facts; you're lame-brained; you're being duped by MSM Leftist-sources."  Not much good comes from anyone on the left saying, "You Repubs won't face facts; you're being duped by grifting pundits and right-wing news sources."

Man, I keep sounding this refrain over and over and am probably becoming pretty damn boring.  And I sure don't have any great solution.  I do think it's good though if we all tend our own little gardens, spend time reading to our kids, helping a stranger with something, and such. 

[PB the Deplorable]

... As for the IRS meetings with the administration, the President or the COS or DCOS could have three a day if he so desires; he's the President.  Do I think there was a game afoot? I don't know, maybe...

No one said the President or his staff can't meet with the IRS.  We only said it smells.  Especially when it matches the timing of the IRS harassment of O's political enemies.  By the way, that lady taking the 5th - Lois Lerner - was fired today.  That's the way it works in DC - protect the President and under the bus she goes. 

The IRS is not directly under the President - it's not a cabinet level agency.  They are under Treasury.  That's who they normally meet with regarding policy and admin - not a bunch of political hacks in the White House basement.

Historically, using the IRS to harass political enemies was off limits, but it's no surprise Obama is doing it.  If I were a Democrat pol in DC I'd be cautioning them about setting precedent.  The Ds won't hold the White House forever


And by the way, don't you Occupy supporters claim to be against corruption, not for it? 

[West of the Rockies]

I'd LOVE to see so much more transparency in all administrations (certainly Obama's included), Paperboy.  One does wonder about such meetings as the administration had with the IRS.  I can recall, however, feeling much the same about Dick Cheney's secret meetings with the big movers and shakers of the energy industry.  Our government is supposed to represent the people, not just business.  (And I am not among those who believe that corporations are people, too.)  Look, there are things about Obama's administration that I don't intend to defend, but I think reasonable people end up feeling that way about any and all politicians.  I can think of no perfect presidents in our nation's long history.  The question is, of course, does an administration's missteps and mischief truly rise to the level of criminal behavior?  Well, that's where things get tricky, right?  Isn't it funny how when my guy does something wrong, well, no big deal, right?  Ah, but your guy -- we gotta pillory him!

[NowhereInTime]

And by the way, don't you Occupy supporters claim to be against corruption, not for it?

Yes, we "Occupy-supporters" do in fact oppose corruption. 

We oppose Mortgage Orignators writing any mortgage they can to whomever they want to make a buck selling it to a brokerage like Lehmann Brothers, Bear Stearns, or Country Wide Financial.  (Who were incompetently overleveraged.)

We oppose brokerages then pooling mortgages together into large financial packages and then selling them off in tranches, so nobody knows who owns what mortgage where.

We oppose Moody's and Fitch' and Standard & Poor's rating those tranches AAA or lowest risk based merely on the say-so of the brokerage. (The same companies that had the audacity to lower our nation's credit rating; funny how that happened when Justice started looking into their rating practices - more corruption we oppose).

We oppose the securitizing of those mortgage tranches as collateralized debt obligations and we strongly oppose the counter-party market that was set up to game against these mortgages in the form of Credit Default Swaps.  (Who asked for this?  This helps our economy how?)

We oppose John Paulson gaming a whole series of hand-picked CDO's he could bet against and have Goldman Sachs sell those out to unwitting investors so Paulson could then buy default swaps against these illegimately rated securities.  And make billions on them when the housing market collapsed.

We oppose the very notion that somehow any of this activity was at all  the blame of "poor people who took mortgages they knew they couldn't afford"  when in fact mortgage orignators were found liable for misleading consumers about payment rates and promoting "negative amortization" as a virtue.  Most of the bad paper was written to the "Flip that House" real estate millionaire wannabes who flooded the market on house flipping get rich quick schemes.  The mortgage originators wanted fees and sales to brokerages.  The brokers wanted fees from selling to clients.  The ratings agencies wanted fees from the brokerage houses.  The John Paulsons and Steven Eismans of the world made billions in CDS bets against the American economy using dubious financial products and are not only not in prison but lauded as brilliant businessman.

Where are the arrests?  Where are the prosecutions?  Sure we can crack skulls when the unwashed "infest" Zuccotti Park but when some wheeler dealer cons us out of billions, where's law enforcement?

But you think "corruption" is Barry O meeting with IRS managers to bother conservatives who want tax free status to run ads blaming poor people for the state of the economy?

Go figure.

[West of the Rockies]

Well said, Nowhere, well said.  It is surreal how some get outraged by criminal trespassing and vandalism but the true felons just keep getting richer.  Do we have any Avalon-Hill gamers here?  It strikes me that the banksters have the 47-page rule book to the game "Big Finance".  We take their word for it when they say they are playing by the rules. 

[PB the Deplorable]

I dunno, I think things like using the IRS to harass political enemies or changing the NSA's mission from fighting terrorism to spying on the American people are way worse than corporate corruption.

Should the corrupt business crooks be chased down and prosecuted?  Hell Yes!  Are they the threat to our liberty and freedom the way Obama's use of the IRS and NSA are?  Not even in the same ballpark. 



Corporations are nowhere near the size of the federal government.  They don't have police or military, they don't make the laws or control the judicial system.  If customers want something different they can go elsewhere ignore the other companies.  Try ignoring the government when they want you to do something.


I think the whole Left/Right divide is about being more suspicious of corporations, profits, and the private sector on one hand vs being suspicious of government power and the public sector on the other hand. 

To me history and the economics of it make it clear the government and it's potentially unlimited power is the more dangerous. 

To the Left (and I'm guessing here because I don't quite understand it) looking at history and economics isn't useful, they know what's best for society and individuals and can do a good job organizing everything, if only the right people get into office and are given the power to get things done.

[PB the Deplorable]

And again, yes some corporate execs are corrupt and have bought influence in DC, but it's the Congress that writes the checks, inserts language into bills on behalf of their cronies, and oversees regulations. 

The answer is to end crony capitalism on Capital Hill and to get the Administration (which ever one is in office at the time) to enforce the law by making arrests and prosecuting the crooks.  Complaining about corporate crooks and ignoring their enablers in political office achieves nothing

[NowhereInTime]

I dunno, I think things like using the IRS to harass political enemies or changing the NSA's mission from fighting terrorism to spying on the American people are way worse than corporate corruption.

Should the corrupt business crooks be chased down and prosecuted?  Hell Yes!  Are they the threat to our liberty and freedom the way Obama's use of the IRS and NSA are?  Not even in the same ballpark. 



Corporations are nowhere near the size of the federal government.  They don't have police or military, they don't make the laws or control the judicial system.  If customers want something different they can go elsewhere ignore the other companies.  Try ignoring the government when they want you to do something.


I think the whole Left/Right divide is about being more suspicious of corporations, profits, and the private sector on one hand vs being suspicious of government power and the public sector on the other hand. 

To me history and the economics of it make it clear the government and it's potentially unlimited power is the more dangerous. 

To the Left (and I'm guessing here because I don't quite understand it) looking at history and economics isn't useful, they know what's best for society and individuals and can do a good job organizing everything, if only the right people get into office and are given the power to get things done.

The Left (and I am comfortable speaking for it because I've spoken to many on this side of the aisle) are very well versed in history and economics.  It is the buttress of selective history and the breastworks of selective economics by conservatives that confounds us. Like your lust for austerity when clearly the world has come around to realize stimulus in the face of slowdown moves economies forward.  But not you proud "austrians" and your Hayek/Friedman anti-poor stance on everything.

Your assertion about the government being "larger" than corporations is just the wrong damn way to assess the problem. This is like saying Mt Everest is larger than a B1 bomber. Great, but what are you going to use bomb a target?  Just because "the government" is large doesn't mean its a uniform entity, operating with deadly efficiency and uniform purpose like Goldman Sachs or Bain Capital!  The existential threat to everyday Americans comes from corporate caprice and the malicious, unquenchable lust for MORE that drives the Mitt Romney's of the world.  Need to make a quarterly to impress the Street?  Toss 3,000 out of work to suppress costs!

You think you can walk away from Corporate interests? Your credit report follows you.  Your work history follows you.  Now your purchasing history is tracked by numerous different companies and you cannot opt out.  Corporations don't have police? So naive.  They hire PI's, Security outfits like Blackwater, and fully avail themselves of your local Sheriff's department to enforce whatever they see fit.  Let's not forget the armies of lawyers they will use for whatever reason (like suing your local all volunteer Zoning Board to change statutes.  Do you like depositions, Paper Boy? Not me.)

No, corporate America has been up in my grille way more than my government ever has.  They've controlled the courts, the legislatures, all aspects of American life and we do nothing but deregulate them further and laud them as "Job Creators" while they create more $1 a day jobs in Bangladesh.

I can vote my Congressman in or out with my one person, one vote franchise.  How many shares of Goldman do I need to own to vote out Lloyd Blankfein?

[NowhereInTime]

And again, yes some corporate execs are corrupt and have bought influence in DC, but it's the Congress that writes the checks, inserts language into bills on behalf of their cronies, and oversees regulations. 

The answer is to end crony capitalism on Capital Hill and to get the Administration (which ever one is in office at the time) to enforce the law by making arrests and prosecuting the crooks.  Complaining about corporate crooks and ignoring their enablers in political office achieves nothing

I think its the other way around.  Its the political crooks and their corporate enablers (like George Soros, like the Koch brothers) who enable the Ted Cruz' and the Anthony Weiners to emerge to the fore of American politics.
I live in Connecticut.  Our nickname for ourselves these days is Corrupticut.  It seems any given moment we have mayors and governors in jail for dipping fingers into the Greenback Pie.  Its frutrating to see how easy the access of corporate interests while slobolas like me can make appointment after appointment to talk to the mayor only to have him "away at an emergency". Our legislators are even more detached and our governor is owned by the Distilled Spirits Council.

[PB the Deplorable]

... It is the buttress of selective history and the breastworks of selective economics by conservatives that confounds us. Like your lust for austerity when clearly the world has come around to realize stimulus in the face of slowdown moves economies forward.  But not you proud "austrians" and your Hayek/Friedman anti-poor stance on everything...

I've already answered your question about 'austerity'.  That's something the World Bank and IMF impose on economies that are usually already way too far gone.  Usually nothing is going to help them.  Austerity is not a Conservative idea, the C's don't run the WB or IMF - we don't believe in those institutions or see them to be useful.  They were set up and are run by the Libs. 

Much of that money goes to third world dictatorships and ends up in the dictators Swiss bank account - most of the rest goes to places like Greece, where they need to make their own decisions on making changes instead of taking more money and continuing on as they were.

The Conservative policy would have been for those countries to not build up a massive bureaucracy and a pile of debt that needs to be bailed out in the first place.



As far as the 'stimulus', I don't see that helping anything.  We've borrowed and printed Trillions of dollars for 'stimulus' and have nothing to show for it. Except  a pile of debt that is unpayable, and will likely ultimately bankrupt the country.  Had the government stayed out of it, let the weak companies go bankrupt with their assets sold off to more competent management, we'd probably be enjoying a nice recovery right now.

If you think the 'stimulus' has been such a success, why was Bernanke not re-appointed?

Keynesian economics, 'pump-priming', whatever you want to call it doesn't work.  It didn't work for FDR in the Depression, it didn't work for Carter during the stag-flation of the 70's, and it isn't working now. 

[NowhereInTime]

As far as the 'stimulus', I don't see that helping anything.  We've borrowed and printed Trillions of dollars for 'stimulus' and have nothing to show for it. Except  a pile of debt that is unpayable, and will likely ultimately bankrupt the country.  Had the government stayed out of it, let the weak companies go bankrupt with their assets sold off to more competent management, we'd probably be enjoying a nice recovery right now.If you think the 'stimulus' has been such a success, why was Bernanke not re-appointed?

Keynesian economics, 'pump-priming', whatever you want to call it doesn't work.  It didn't work for FDR in the Depression, it didn't work for Carter during the stag-flation of the 70's, and it isn't working now.

Exactly who was going to buy these troubled assets?  At what ruinous price?  Dimon had to swallow Bear Stearns for $10 a share (Hank Paulson originally said $2 a share!) - Bank of America had to swallow Country Wide and they're still suffering the pains of indigestion by way of settling lawsuits!

The problem with your economic philosophy (invisible hand, Friedman, laissez faire) is that it has been tried all too often with ruinous results.  There is no catalyst, no impetus, no mechanism guaranteeing action! You presume someone, somehow, somewhere wants to buy these assets (without the government twisting their arm) and you have no plan for how to re-employ the obvious job casualties that would result from these bankruptcies. Or even guarantee a fair price for the assets because the "competent" management wouldn't touch them voluntarily.  Look at what the British Government did pulling RBS back from a deal and RBS is still being sued by Lehmann investors! 

Your response was President Hoover's response to his economic collapse and it was why FDR was elected.  Yet somehow, given the results of years of stimulus programs, you call FDR a failure?  Based on what re-written history?  That is my biggest gripe with conservatives; I don't know from where you guys get your information, but it doesn't jibe with history. 

As to the Bernanke thing?  Bam wanted his pal Larry in, but now Larry's out.  Its obvious he wants to guarantee QE through the midterms and Ben seems to want to lean towards draw down, despite this recent reversal of course.