A peek under the robes of an increasingly partisan court
" ... just another political body"
In another 5-4 vote Monday, and without bothering to hear arguments in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court blithely tossed out a longstanding Montana law that barred corporations from making campaign contributions in state elections. States’ rights, it seems, must bow to corporate power in the Roberts court.
Or as Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock noted afterward, “It is a sad day for our democracy and for those of us who still want to believe that the United States Supreme Court is anything more than another political body.”
Bullock’s condemnation of the nation’s highest court as just “another political body” may sound harsh to some ears, but it is depressingly accurate. The Montana law had been on the books for 100 years, and for most of those 100 years its constitutionality had not been called into serious question. It was considered well within established law.
The absurd notions that have now forced its demise — corporations are people and speech is money — are novel law that has been imposed upon Montana and the rest of the country by an increasingly activist, inventive and yes, partisan Supreme Court.
Let’s be honest about this: The increasingly partisan nature of the court is not an accident. It did not occur by magic, but by concerted effort. For at least a quarter of a century, the Republican Party has made the creation of such a court one of its primary goals. The same sort of rigid ideological tests that the party has imposed on candidates for elective office have also been imposed on those it supports for nomination to the federal judiciary. Over a generation, that campaign has succeeded in creating a court that is far more friendly to the powerful than to the individual citizen.
The “smoking gun” in that evolution is of course the court’s “Citizens United” decision, in which the conservative majority decided that bans or limits on corporate expenditures are unconstitutional because “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
That finding is ludicrous for a variety of reasons. It contradicts common sense, it contradicts history, it contradicts what we can see taking place in plain sight at this very moment and it contradicts the elected politicians who passed campaign-finance laws in the first place. Unlike the unelected justices, those politicians know the system intimately; they know firsthand what power can be wielded by unlimited money spent anonymously.
The people of Montana know it as well. I would strongly advise those interested in the issue to read last year’s 5-2 decision of the Montana Supreme Court (available here) as it attempted to uphold and defend their state’s law against the conservative judicial majority in Washington. The decision lays out in clear language that state’s difficult history in trying to fend off outside corporate control.
It’s also important to note that neither of the two dissenters on the Montana court embraced the logic of the Citizens’ United decision. Instead, they based their dissent on the fact that Montana had no choice but to bow to the federal court’s greater authority, however irrational it might be.
One of those dissenters, Justice James C. Nelson, used the opportunity to express his clear and eloquent disgust with the decision of his federal counterparts. I cannot recommend it more highly.
Here’s part of what he had to say:
“For starters, the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield inordinate power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins; the transition is seamless and overlapping.
In my view, Citizens United has turned the First Amendment’s “open marketplace” of ideas into an auction house for Friedmanian corporatists. Freedom of speech is now synonymous with freedom to spend. Speech equals money; money equals democracy. This decidedly was not the view of the constitutional founders, who favored the preeminence of individual interests over those of big business.
Furthermore, it defies reality to suggest that millions of dollars in slick television and Internet ads — put out by entities whose purpose and expertise, in the first place, is to persuade people to buy what’s being sold—carry the same weight as the fliers of citizen candidates and the letters to the editor of John and Mary Public. It is utter nonsense to think that ordinary citizens or candidates can spend enough to place their experience, wisdom, and views before the voters and keep pace with the virtually unlimited spending capability of corporations to place corporate views before the electorate….
I absolutely do not agree that corporate money in the form of “independent expenditures” expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates cannot give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Of course it can. Even the most cursory review of decades of partisan campaigns and elections, whether state or federal, demonstrates this. Citizens United held that the only sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is one that is limited to quid pro quo corruption. This is simply smoke and mirrors. In the real world of politics, the “quid pro quo” of both direct contributions to candidates and independent expenditures on their behalf is loyalty. And, in practical effect, experience teaches that money corrupts, and enough of it corrupts absolutely.
I cannot agree with the holding that the prevention of corruption in the form of independent expenditures is not a compelling state interest. There is no plausible reason why a state would not want to protect the integrity of its election process against corruption and undue influence; to do otherwise would render the fundamental right to vote a meaningless exercise….
Lastly, I am compelled to say something about corporate “personhood.” While I recognize that this doctrine is firmly entrenched in the law, I find the entire concept offensive. Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers — not constitutional rights, but legislatively conferred powers — that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited-liability investment vehicles for business.
Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people — human beings — to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.”
President Obama, name that man to the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,368 comments Add your comment
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
June 26th, 2012
2:47 pm
“Corporations have rights, or they don’t. But if they don’t, then you can’t regulate or tax them either.”
Why?
Who made up that rule?
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
2:48 pm
Getalife 2:43 “the mic”??
mdouglasman
June 26th, 2012
2:49 pm
Yeah Jamvet…let’s try Greece and the EU approach
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
2:49 pm
Jay I am not a Republican, I am a Libertarian. I disagree with a great deal of the Republican’s ideas, but I do not dismiss all of them off hand.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
June 26th, 2012
2:50 pm
mdouglasman
austerity has worked soooooo well…..
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
2:50 pm
Granny “no taxation without representation”
Common sense
Go back and delve into the income tax rulings
SC made up that rule as a byproduct of the constitution
Take it up with the long dead judges
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 26th, 2012
2:50 pm
Jay, one comment to your article…. “name that MAN to the Supreme Court”…..shouldn’t that be person?
Jay
June 26th, 2012
2:51 pm
So on foreign policy, Chuck, you think it’s fine to see Romney assembling a team of advisers that reads like the team that got us into the Iraq War and advocates aggressive use of our military overseas?
On the environment, you think it’s fine to pretend that global warming doesn’t exist and is in fact a conspiracy among scientists to ruin the global economy?
getalife
June 26th, 2012
2:51 pm
Chuck,
Your party abused the filibuster and the gop house passes crap that will never pass the Senate.
You give your party a free pass on broken congress.
It takes two to tango chuckie.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
2:51 pm
BOTH, the guy goes through long stretches of posts where he makes no sense at all.
I call it the JM stream of unconsciousness posting.
To wit, check out this doozy…
Corporations have rights, or they don’t.
He would get laughed out of a ninth grade Civics class for writing that one on the chalkboard…
massachusetts refugee
June 26th, 2012
2:52 pm
getalife – i agree with your 237, but until or unless roberts, thomas, alito, and/or scalia resign, or move on to the great beyond, it’s the law of the land. deal with it.
mdouglasman
June 26th, 2012
2:52 pm
What austerity???? $16 trillion
Jay
June 26th, 2012
2:53 pm
With the deficit as high as it is, Chuck, you think it’s responsible to refuse to consider tax hikes as part of the solution and in fact to advocate continued tax cuts?
getalife
June 26th, 2012
2:54 pm
jm,
Military industrial complex is the powerful mic.
The other powerful corruption group is the coc. Chamber of Commerce.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
June 26th, 2012
2:55 pm
Jm
No taxation without representation is your arguement?
Really? That’s what you call common sense.
Sorry, Jm nope.
Common sense is that coporations are not people.
Made up of, employers of, run by…..but not people.
Jay
June 26th, 2012
2:55 pm
No, Keep. If I wrote “person”, then I might be opening the door to letting a corporation sit on the Supreme Court.
mdouglasman
June 26th, 2012
2:56 pm
Jay..2:53 YES. Stop the spending..
getalife
June 26th, 2012
2:56 pm
“it’s the law of the land. deal with it.”
Which part of losing the class war do you not understand?
Of course, we have to deal with this sc mandate until a new generation fights to change it.
Bow down like the cons.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
2:56 pm
I agree with cons that as long as you tax and regulate corporations, then they also have rights
Apparently libs don’t believe that
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
June 26th, 2012
2:56 pm
mdouglasman
you don’t have any real idea why the EU is in the mess its in do you?
dismissed.
Adam
June 26th, 2012
2:57 pm
Jay: I agree with Obama on some things and not on others, but it’s not BECAUSE the Republicans are currently crazy. That’s just why I won’t vote for a single one of them until they become sane again. It doesn’t mean I support armed drones, which both parties support.
GFY
June 26th, 2012
2:57 pm
Let’s try the approach the Greeks are doing with higher taxes….what’s the worst that could happen?
harvey
June 26th, 2012
2:57 pm
But, it is ok for unions to force their employees to pay up and then use the money to support their favorite candidates? Get real.
Paul
June 26th, 2012
2:57 pm
mdouglasman
“mall goverment..get the hell out of the private sectors lives”
You’re not here very often, are you? Else you’d know such facts as the rate of regulation issuance vs the previous administration, how low this administration’s spending on new programs is compared to previous administrations, how low this administration’s growth of public sector jobs is compared to previous administrations, that sort of stuff.
So, exactly what did you mean by
“small government”
and “get the hell out of private sectors lives”?
Jay
June 26th, 2012
2:58 pm
Adam, I support the use of drones, and did so under Bush as well. We have enemies who want to kill us, and I’m all for getting them first if we can.
Stevie Ray
June 26th, 2012
2:58 pm
JAY,
I agree that global warming/climate change is a hoax and that the actual science of the climate is too new to lend credence to….i think you already knew this however…it is a conspiracy to both make idiots like Gore millions and to validate a new science who are making projections 50 years down the road…
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
2:59 pm
I also agree with cons (and Clinton) that lower tax rates with fewer and lower deductions is good policy
getalife
June 26th, 2012
2:59 pm
“Jay..2:53 YES. Stop the spending..”
What spending did your party cut?
EJ Moosa
June 26th, 2012
2:59 pm
I have to wonder if the name is removed and you were only able to talk about POTUS doing this or that.
Would you then be willing to agree that executive orders are being misused? Or that POTUS needed approval before launching that war?
There are far too many here who base their decisions as to what is acceptable or not on who is in the White House.
Or who is running Congress.
Until then, it’s just more of the same…..
mdouglasman
June 26th, 2012
2:59 pm
Yes, Granny..no personal responsibility…ask their unions
John Birch
June 26th, 2012
2:59 pm
Of course this is just another part of the traitor Reagan’s legacy. He started vetting potential SC appointees to ensure they were conservative enough after O’connor was such a disappointment. Still this court is probably better than when we had the revisionist liberals Marshall and Brennan ruling the death penalty constituted cruel and unusual punishment.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:00 pm
A corporate supreme court. Now Jay has done gone and scared ME and I don’t scare near as easy as a con.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
3:00 pm
I’m fine with drones
As long as we’re not killing Americans with them
Adam
June 26th, 2012
3:00 pm
Jm: Corporations have rights, they just don’t have the same rights as people – because they are NOT people. They should not be allowed to vote, for instance. But they have a tremendous influence on our lives, for good or ill, regardless.
Money is not speech. It’s property. Using money to elevate your speech also is using money to drown out the speech of someone else.
Stevie Ray
June 26th, 2012
3:00 pm
Why doesn’t our impotent congress begin pushing for an amendment clarifying the citizen intent of the constitution? I guess the cash they need from these bullsh*t corporate citizens is impossible to give up..
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
3:01 pm
let’s try Greece and the EU approach
You trot out a silly red herring that has NOTHING to do with flat-lined wages for most people in this country?
Why not an intelligent ON TOPIC response to the facts that I listed?
Look, I get it.
You desperately want to believe your Republican masters and their bosses on Wall Street.
You actually want to pretend that the Middle Class in this country has not gotten murdered for forty straight years.
You really think that those Titans of Criminal Negligence and Malfeasance were in no way primarily responsible for the horrific devastation and legalized thievery that they unleashed in 2008. That still racks this republic to this very day.
For you, if you just say it over and over and over, there was no Lost Decade to start out his century.
Did you see the AJC article yesterday about the economic demolition that the Atlanta metro region is still going through?
No matter, because I guarantee you that your children and grandchildren are not laughing…
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
3:01 pm
Jm — “I agree with cons that as long as you tax and regulate corporations, then they also have rights. Apparently libs don’t believe that”
I certainly don’t, and I marvel at how you can possibly believe it yourself. Why aren’t you demanding to see corporations’ birth certificates? Especially the long form? And how do you know that they came here *legally?*
For all the shrieking and overreacting y’all do about immigrants and the President somehow being ‘invaders’ and ‘usurpers,’ y’all certainly do seem forgiving when a supposed ‘citizen’ has “Inc” somewhere in its name.
mdouglasman
June 26th, 2012
3:01 pm
Getalife…don’t have a dog in the fight but I do know we cannot continue with the guy we have
Paul
June 26th, 2012
3:01 pm
chuck
“Jay I am not a Republican, I am a Libertarian. I disagree with a great deal of the Republican’s ideas, but I do not dismiss all of them off hand.”
ummmmm…… Jay asked you your strongest area of agreement with GOP policy.
Care to try again?
Answering the question, that is?
By the way, your voter ID registration, on file at your county election office, says Libertarian?
Adam
June 26th, 2012
3:02 pm
Jay: I don’t support armed drones because it further removes the general population from the human cost of war. I can see how they have been used, and it has a practical and net positive effect so far. But I still don’t like it one bit.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
3:02 pm
I’m pro healthcare reform
As long as it doesn’t enlarge government and increases individual choice and freedom
Which single payer does not do
getalife
June 26th, 2012
3:02 pm
jm,
What was the tax rate under Clinton?
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
3:02 pm
Harvey — “But, it is ok for unions to force their employees to pay up and then use the money to support their favorite candidates? Get real.”
Harvey, the SCOTUS ruled against that a few days ago. Pay attention, please.
Matti
June 26th, 2012
3:02 pm
If I incorporate myself, can I keep “small government” from peeking underneath my paper gown at the doctor’s office, and climbing inside my va-hoo-ha to make my personal medical decisions for me? Just curious.
massachusetts refugee
June 26th, 2012
3:03 pm
i’ve “lost” nothing, and bow to no man, or party. i still get to vote (for what that’s worth); i still get to make up my own mind about who to vote for. how much money some candidate’s PAC spends has no bearing on my opinions. not my problem if the great unwashed are so easily bought; been that way since the beginning of the republic.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
3:03 pm
Matti — “my va-hoo-ha”
I’m sorry, but I’m not a physician. Is that the medical term?
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
June 26th, 2012
3:03 pm
mdouglasman
trying the 3 guesses thing?
you got 2 more.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
June 26th, 2012
3:03 pm
mdouglasman
trying the 3 guesses thing?
you got 2 more.
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
3:03 pm
Jay on foreign policy there is overly hawkish policy’s like Bush’s and there is overly dovish policy’s like Carter’s. On the environment I still haven’t heard in a true alternate to our energy problems. You have Corn, Solar, and Wind and they are no closer to being viable than they were 30 years ago, and they are used as a way to give away money for buying votes for both sides. How many BILLIONS and BILLIONS have we giving away to company’s that have already bolted their doors. There can’t only be one way.
getalife
June 26th, 2012
3:03 pm
“continue with the guy we have”
Do you want another collapse?
Are you expecting a different result if the gop win?
Common Sense
June 26th, 2012
3:04 pm
“Money is not speech. It’s property.”
No, it’s not. Otherwise money could NOT be taken from you without due process.
And it is….all the time.
Welcome to the Occupation
June 26th, 2012
3:05 pm
Jay expressing his liberal hawkishness at 2:58 I see.
So it can then be presumed, I suppose, that in your view the danger of creating new terrorists with each strike is overblown, or non-existent? And if that’s what you believe, have you really thought that through?
Let’s say a man, a non-terrorist, living in Pakistan or Yemen, has his pregnant wife blown up by one of our drones even though she herself was not a militant either. Do you really believe that there is a zero increase in the likelihood of his giving aid to the opponents of America after suffering such a loss at our hands?
I honestly find that claim as unbelievable as the claim that unlimited corporate cash in political campaigns carries no risk of corruption or the appearance thereof.
John Birch
June 26th, 2012
3:05 pm
Jay – Obama campaigned on 2 more brigades (maybe 5000 troops) into Afghanistan and then got the speech from General Dynamics et all and sent in 10 times 5000 uttering some nonsense about more troops now = less troops later. And he caved in on reversing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Hope and Change sounded fine but the reality has been nothing but a healthcare bill 2/3 of Americans are against.
mdouglasman
June 26th, 2012
3:05 pm
JamVet, I’ve done quite well the last decade because I worked and to coin an old phrase, “I earned it”…why don’t you pick yourself up[ and stop whining and maybe you will be a success one of these days…but blame it on everything, everyboby but yourself
Adam
June 26th, 2012
3:05 pm
JHM: Harvey, the SCOTUS ruled against that a few days ago. Pay attention, please.
Before now, I didn’t realize how much wind this took out of the conservative poutrage sails on this issue. Thank you, Joe.
Of course it’ll probably be like the people who somehow think education or transportation is fully funded, despite continued removal of funding and the claim “hey look, it’s not working!” All you have to do is pretend the thing you are doing to dismantle something never happened so you can dismantle some more.
EJ Moosa
June 26th, 2012
3:06 pm
“With the deficit as high as it is, Chuck, you think it’s responsible to refuse to consider tax hikes as part of the solution and in fact to advocate continued tax cuts?”
The deficit is high? With Obama the Frugal?
Paul
June 26th, 2012
3:06 pm
EJ Moosa
“Would you then be willing to agree that executive orders are being misused? ”
It was asked earlier: with all the angst among Republicans over Pres Obama’s directive regarding immigration, the charges of not enforcing the laws on the books, violating his oath of office, etc
what do you think of Candidate Romney’s pledge to issue an executive order overturning the health care law?
And any ideas why the Right hasn’t condemned him for his pledge?
getalife
June 26th, 2012
3:06 pm
chuckie,
We are investing in green energy and some will fail.
Our President is strong on national security and refuses to lose that argument with actions.
You are not informed by watching fox and reading drudgey.
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
3:07 pm
Jay tax those rich people at 100% and still will not make the smallest bit a diffence in the long run. We have to slash spending, not cut spending, SLASH spending. Take 100 % of all of the money above $100,000 that every in the country makes and you will not be able to run the country in the black. Before you say anything, Yes I believe that military spending needs to be slashed as well and I sell steal to the Navy.
getalife
June 26th, 2012
3:09 pm
chuckie,
We lost a decade of growth because something happened.
What happened chuckie?
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
3:09 pm
Chuck — “I sell steal to the Navy.”
Is that your way of saying that you gouge the military with “cost-plus” contracts?
mdouglasman
June 26th, 2012
3:09 pm
Getalife, Jam…got to go to work…get the crops in.
Mr_B
June 26th, 2012
3:10 pm
“I agree with cons that as long as you tax and regulate corporations, then they also have rights
Apparently libs don’t believe that”
Here’s a few other things that are taxed or regulated:
Tobacco
Alcohol
Sporting goods
Explosives
Pharmaceuticals
Meat products
Radioactive materials
I guess the all should have “rights” too.
Stevie Ray
June 26th, 2012
3:11 pm
GETAFIFE,
The investments in greencrap per President Trillions wasted stimulus all went to campaign bundlers and cronies…in some cases, the cronies set up shell companies to accept the loans or grants the sold with profit to existing manufacturing cos…our government hard at work using our tax dollars to pay off political IOU’s…Bush wasn’t excepted and neither is President Spineless…
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
3:11 pm
Getalife
Unless they find companies that are in it for profits and not government handouts, they will ALL fail. See the auto industry and banks, how many times do we have to bail out Chrysler anyways. Name one successful green tech company that is standing on its own feet with no government crutch.
Adam
June 26th, 2012
3:11 pm
Common Sense: Otherwise money could NOT be taken from you without due process.
Taxes are Constitutional. Get over it. Further, the Constitution does not say what form the taxes must take (i.e. currency). It is legal, and constitutional, for them to take your property, whether that is in the form of currency or not. Currency is just easier to deal with and helps determine value.
getalife
June 26th, 2012
3:11 pm
“get the crops in”
The gop are fighting to end your farm subsidy.
Do you hire immigrants?
getalife
June 26th, 2012
3:12 pm
chuckie,
What happened to our economy under w?
Paul
June 26th, 2012
3:12 pm
chuck 3:03
You really don’t want to answer Jay’s question, do you?
mdouglasman
You really have no idea what you mean when you repeat the phrases ’smalll government” and “get the government out of private sector lives” do you?
I’ll try to give you a hint at what I think you mean with getting government out of private sector lives:
Sequestration is going to cut about $50 billion a year from Defense. DoD asserts that will result in the loss of thousands of jobs at corporations like Boeing, Lockheed and small companies.
Is that what you mean by getting the government ouf of the private sector lives?
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
3:12 pm
JamVet, I’ve done quite well the last decade because I worked and to coin an old phrase, “I earned it”…
I doubt it, but even so.
All that matters to you is you. And maybe Donald Trump.
You could give a flying ___ about your neighbors, community or nation.
Presuming you are old enough, you must have made a perfect Reaganista.
F&ck America and everyone else, I got mine…
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
3:13 pm
I sell steel going to the Navy, not directly to the Navy, I am sorry I misspoke there. We have gotten away from dealing directly with the Navy, way too much hassle.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:13 pm
Jay tax those rich people at 100%
I beg to differ. Merely raising taxes back to a net 35 percent on those people formerly known as corporations will make quite a sizeable dent in the deficit and debt in short order.
Stevie Ray
June 26th, 2012
3:14 pm
Chuck,
I agree about trivial impact of taxing all the “rich”….heck I don’t even know what the definition of “rich” is anymore…where exactly does middle class end and “rich” begin?
Why not cut the military 20% and EVERYTHING else, including entitlements by 10%? Once again, our corruptresentatives are financially conflicted from doing right thing..
getalife
June 26th, 2012
3:14 pm
stevie,
Some are not failing.
Big oil is making record profits and don’t need your help.
Stand up, you look silly bowing down.
Welcome to the Occupation
June 26th, 2012
3:14 pm
Chuck: “Jay tax those rich people at 100% and still will not make the smallest bit a diffence in the long run. We have to slash spending, not cut spending, SLASH spending”
Who fed you that absolute nonsense?
Why did you even ever start worrying about “spending” anyway?
It’s because someone told you to.
And the way they did it?
They convinced you in your naivete to apply an inappropriate metaphor to federal budgets, namely the “family kitchen table” metaphor according to which a federal budget operates just like a family’s budget, where every cent has to be paid back in full to an external creditor.
In your ignorance, you’ve bought a sham argument hook, line, and sinker simply because it appeals to your moral sensibilities.
Jefferson
June 26th, 2012
3:14 pm
Tax @ 100%, anything after that type of nonsense is just stupid…
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:14 pm
Jay tax those rich people at 100%.
I beg to differ. Merely raising taxes back to a net 35 percent on those people formerly known as corporations will make quite a sizeable dent in the deficit and debt in short order.
Adam
June 26th, 2012
3:15 pm
TaxPayer: I beg to differ. Merely raising taxes back to a net 35 percent on those people formerly known as corporations will make quite a sizeable dent in the deficit and debt in short order.
Spoiler alert! Someone is going to complain about GE under the false assumption that you somehow mean to exclude them!
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:16 pm
Oops. Double postation is almost as bad as double taxation.
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
3:16 pm
Getalife
I agree Bush hurt the economy right along with his Democratic Congress and Senate. You people have to see that both sides played a part in the failures.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
3:17 pm
Chuck — “Name one successful green tech company that is standing on its own feet with no government crutch.”
Name one successful US petroleum company that’s standing on its own two feet with no government crutch.
Also name one successful US energy company that’s producing nuclear power without Federal assistance.
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
3:17 pm
And any ideas why the Right hasn’t condemned him for his pledge?
Do the letters “IOKIYAR” ring any bells?
getalife
June 26th, 2012
3:18 pm
For those expecting a different result other than another gop collapse:
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results ”
The gop just spent 642 billion on the military.
Lets live in the real world cons.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
3:18 pm
Getalife 3:02 higher than it is now
So what?
His own budget guy said as they were leaving that we needed lower rates and fewer deductions (lower the rates, broaden the base)
Incidentally, Simpson Bowles said the same thing
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
3:19 pm
The use of solar energy has not been opened up because the oil industry does not own the sun. ~Ralph Nader
Brosephus™
June 26th, 2012
3:19 pm
Obama is over @ 1:09
Your post confirms that Obama’s executive immigration order last week is illegal and unenforcable because he circumvented Congress- and thus it is not a law.
I don’t recall anybody ever saying he was enacting laws at all. What he did is no different than what previouse presidents have done with signing statments and executive orders. If you didn’t get your britches in a bunch when GW Bush, Clinton, GHW Bush, Reagan, or any other president did the same thing, you might want to look a bit deep into your soul to see what your true motivation is for disliking what Obama did.
—————–
Jay
June 26th, 2012
2:31 pm
I’d disagree with Obama more often if the Republicans offered me a sane alternative.
I second the motion!!!
John Birch
June 26th, 2012
3:19 pm
Chuck – It’s worse than that. If you taxed all the evil rich 100% and confiscated all their property you couldn’t run the Obama government for a year. And then what would you do with no rich to tax, millions of jobs lost as the wealthy’s investments were turned into political paybacks to unions, etc.? I’m in favor of eliminating all recessive taxes, capital gains, dividends, and SS, but it won’t balance the budget.
getalife
June 26th, 2012
3:20 pm
Chuckie,
It collapsed under w.
The buck stops with the President.
Stop deflecting blame, man up and admit it.
Paul
June 26th, 2012
3:20 pm
sfd
“IOKIYAR”
Then there’s “IRDKBISGWIHIOTR”
It’s the unwritten answer to all my questions that bloggers are unable to answer:
“I really don’t know but it sounds good when I hear it on the radio.”
Stevie Ray
June 26th, 2012
3:20 pm
GETALIFE,
Screw oil companies…we agree on that…$6.5 billion of $20 billion of Green Stimulus was invested in companies, beyond Solyndra, that have failed…also, more to follow with several of the more significant loans/grants…
I think we get hosed by big oil and feel the only successful tactic is to drill and frac our tails off…
Paul
June 26th, 2012
3:22 pm
Chuck – John Birch
The only people talking about taxing the rich at 100% are right wingers who say that’s what left wingers want to do.
Typical.
getalife
June 26th, 2012
3:22 pm
jm,
You do not cut or raise taxes after a collapse.
President Clinton is right about this fact.
Europe did not listen, tried austerity and now look at them.
Live in the real world jm.
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
3:23 pm
Welcome to the occupation
Yes you are correct, anyone that disagrees with your opinion has to be stupid. I may not be the economic sevant that you are, but I believe that I am able to read some books, weigh the options and come up with my own opinion. I do not need to be lead by anyone. Maybe if you were as smart as you seem to think you are, you could come up with away to disagree somone without being insulting
getalife
June 26th, 2012
3:24 pm
stevie,
You focus on failures but some green companies are making it.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
3:24 pm
Corporations aren’t people, but like it or not they have rights
Sorry delusional people, sorry you lost
Get over it
Brosephus™
June 26th, 2012
3:24 pm
dB @ 3:17
I think we have a winner!!!!!!
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
3:24 pm
“I really don’t know but it sounds good when I hear it on the radio.”
The rally cry that launched a thousand Fair Tax bumper stickers.
getalife
June 26th, 2012
3:25 pm
jm,
We lost the class war .
We accept this fact.
John Birch
June 26th, 2012
3:25 pm
Welcome – It’s not nonsense. Go to the Forbes list and add up all the wealth of the top 400 in the US. Forget the income that’s a lot less, add up the accumulated wealth and it’s way less than the $3.2T the US will spend this year. The nonpartisan committee suggested three to four parts cost cutting with one part tax increases. You can’t balance the budget when you have 55% producers and 45% leeches.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:26 pm
John Birch really does not have a clue regarding the net worth of wealthiest.