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
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
3:26 pm
Getalife
It stops with the president, you can’t really believe that. If it “takes a village to raise a child” then it takes a village to destroy the economy. I hear the President blaming the other side for the slow recovery everyday, maybe you should tell him that “it stops with the president”.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
3:26 pm
Jm — “Corporations aren’t people, but like it or not they have rights”
Show me where the Constitution grants them even *one* right.
Brosephus™
June 26th, 2012
3:26 pm
Then there’s “IRDKBISGWIHIOTR”
You know I’m gonna co-opt that, right?
getalife
June 26th, 2012
3:27 pm
chuckie,
You ignore the facts like w collapsed the global economy so don’t expect an honest debate.
Welcome to the Occupation
June 26th, 2012
3:27 pm
Chuck: “Yes you are correct, anyone that disagrees with your opinion has to be stupid”
Who said anything about opinion? What I laid out above is fact. The problem is that an ideological insurgency owns the public discourse and uses its dominance to peddle falsehoods. Under such a regime I have no patience for the slime that passes for information and no time for niceties. If that sounds mean, tough.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:27 pm
International Paper Co. – 2010
CEO compensation: $12.3 million
U.S. federal income taxes: $249 million refund
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
3:27 pm
J. Birch — “You can’t balance the budget when you have 55% producers and 45% leeches.”
If you have such a low opinion of your fellow countrymen, then perhaps you should leave for greener pastures elsewhere.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:28 pm
Prudential Financial
CEO compensation: $16.2 million
U.S. federal income taxes: $722 million refund
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:28 pm
GE
CEO compensation: $15.2 million
U.S. federal income taxes: $3.3 billion refund
Stevie Ray
June 26th, 2012
3:29 pm
GETALIFE,
The only one that has consistently performed is GE…who is the worlds’ largest producer of wind turbines…familiar crony smell to that one wouldn’t you agree?
John Birch
June 26th, 2012
3:29 pm
Paul – way too literal man. It’s hyperbole to make the point that even at 100% it wouldn’t end the deficit. BTW, allowing the AJC’s owner, worth $12B or so to pay a lower rate on her $1B annual income than I pay on what I actually work to earn is criminal.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:29 pm
Verizon
CEO compensation: $18.1 million
U.S. federal income taxes: $705 million refund
td
June 26th, 2012
3:29 pm
Eustis
June 26th, 2012
3:26 pm
“After reading this, I understand why td was banned from Bookman.”
Sorry Jay, but just had to prove another left winger wrong by posting here with their comments.
getalife
June 26th, 2012
3:29 pm
chuckie sounds like all the other cons.
Ignore the facts and spew con talking points with no intellectual honesty.
Same ole same ole.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
3:29 pm
Paul and the only bloggers who ever use the word *evil* are those with pitiful vocabularies unable to use cogent adjectives.
An email from the awesome people at Vote Vets…
We’re taking millionaire Representative Denny Rehberg (who is running for Senate against Senator Jon Tester) to task, for voting himself a pay increase five times, while voting against additional funding for prosthetic research that would help over 1600 veterans who lost limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The ad, which is running for a week at a cost of $100,000, features Jim Kearns, an Iraq War Veteran from Helena. In the ad, he says, “I served in Iraq and came home safely. Over 1600 who left limbs in Iraq and Afghanistan weren’t so lucky. But Congressman Rehberg voted against additional critical funding for prosthetic research. Millionaire Rehberg voted to give himself a pay raise. Five times. Then voted against helping wounded vets. And now Congressman Rehberg wants us to call him Senator? No way.”
Indeed, from 2003 through last year, Rehberg continually voted to allow himself a pay raise in Congress, even while his net worth has been estimated to be well over $10 million – putting him in the top 25 richest Members of Congress, according to Roll Call.
Rehberg, in May of this year, voted against a motion to recommit a Veterans Affairs Department appropriation bill that would have increased funding for prosthetic research and development by $28 million. According to a press release from the measure’s sponsor, Congressman John Barrow, “Under the amendment, $56 million in surplus funds would be removed from the BRAC closure account. Half of that amount, $28 million, would be added to funding for medical and prosthetic research. The remaining $28 million would go towards deficit reduction.”
This is a critical time for us. We’re literally deciding which way we’ll go as a nation – give more and more to millionaires, while making cuts to veterans, or show some responsibility and fairness in our budgeting. Ads like these put the stakes into clear terms. We need to run more.
Support the troops.
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:29 pm
Nothing says non-partisan quite like a wise latina woman
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:29 pm
Bank of New York Mellon
CEO compensation: $19.4 million
U.S. federal income taxes: $670 million refund
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
3:30 pm
“The buck stops with the President.”
Not as long as Obama is in office
He passes the buck to (multiple choice)
Bush
Congress
Republicans
The senate
Europe
The house
Bush
Clinton
Banks
Capitalists
Employers
Companies
Bush
The supreme court
Bush
The federal reserve
The SEC
Bush
No wonder the monetary base has grown so much
Obama passes the buck everywhere
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:31 pm
Anyone who blames partisanship soley on Republicans is…well……just not too bright.
US blunders in rebuilding Iraq signal a delining superpower
June 26th, 2012
3:31 pm
Even once adjusted for inflation, the US actually spent more money trying to rebuild Iraq than it did reconstructing Germany. Yet its efforts can hardly be called a success: Iraq’s political system is unstable, its economy stagnant and its people are far from turning – as George W Bush seems to have hoped they would – into contented clones of suburban Americans. Why this disparity in outcomes?
Can we rebuild the U.S. instead? DETROIT could use a lot of help!!
I wonder if Mitt Romney really meant that “we should let Detroit go bankrupt”?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWEdjiEJg0U
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
3:31 pm
“45% leeches.”
Why does he hate the evil corporations?
LOL…
John Birch
June 26th, 2012
3:31 pm
Hussein – Thanks for the invite, might consider that in a few years the way thkings are going. But in the meantime I’ll continue blogging and voting libertarian to try and save this country. However, you might prefer one of those Eropean social democracies.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
3:32 pm
Taxpayer
Sorry pal
All your data is irrelevant
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:32 pm
And apparently the not-too-bright crowd are drawn to Bookman’s blog like undocumented workers to a landscaping truck.
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
3:32 pm
Yes I see by how often you are on the VERY VERY important blog, just how valuable your time is. I am sure that you are out there changing the world as we speak, oh I mean after your bogging break. Let me guess 2nd year in the University.
Mr_B
June 26th, 2012
3:32 pm
The nonpartisan committee suggested three to four parts cost cutting with one part tax increases.
Yet not one of the Republican candidates for president would accept even a 1 for 10 ratio of tax increases/ spending cuts. In fact, they uniformly insist on lower taxes.
Nobody ever suggest taxing anyone at 100%, and nobody ever suggested that the deficit and debt could be eliminated by doing so.
Why it is so unthinkable that those who take the most out put the most back in is beyond me.
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
3:33 pm
That last one was for Welcome to the whatever
Mr_B
June 26th, 2012
3:33 pm
And apparently the not-too-bright crowd are drawn to Bookman’s blog like undocumented workers to a landscaping truck.
Well, Ben, you’re here………
Paul
June 26th, 2012
3:33 pm
Brosephus
Goes without sayin’
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:33 pm
Boeing
Pre-tax income: $4.3 billion.
CEO compensation: $13.8 million,
fed income tax: $13 million
state and local taxes: $137 million refund
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
3:34 pm
Off topic, but I sure am glad there’s someone out there to read David Brooks’ columns so that I don’t have to.
if by “column,” you mean, “the blithering faux-intellectualism of a regular-guy-wannabe who has less insight than a dump taken by Larry the Cable Guy”
Joel Edge
June 26th, 2012
3:34 pm
” who favored the preeminence of individual interests over those of big business.”
They had “big business” back then? Wall Street been around longer than I thought.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:34 pm
JM,
You’re irrelevent.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
3:35 pm
J. Birch — “Hussein – Thanks for the invite, might consider that in a few years the way thkings are going. But in the meantime I’ll continue blogging and voting libertarian to try and save this country. However, you might prefer one of those Eropean social democracies.”
No, thanks. We disabled veterans prefer to be where the VA Medical Centers are.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
3:35 pm
Ben 3:31 true
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:35 pm
I mean, nothing says “non-partisan” quite like Obama inviting Republican Congressman to ride in the back of the bus, now does it?
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
3:36 pm
B. Shockley — “And apparently the not-too-bright crowd are drawn to Bookman’s blog like undocumented workers to a landscaping truck.”
Res Ipsa Loquitor.
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
3:36 pm
All your data is irrelevant
it are belong to us.
John Birch
June 26th, 2012
3:36 pm
Jam – It’s all just Pyschology 101, positive reinforcement works. You give illegal aliens jobs, free food, education, and health care and you get 11 million illegal aliens. You give Americans food, housing, cell phones and cash for not working and you get 45% paying no federal income tax. All they have to do is vote Dem to vote themselves a free lunch as Obama learned back in his “buying votes for Daley” days.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
3:37 pm
“JM,
You’re irrelevent”
First, learn to spell. Second, what grade are you in? Do you make your own lunch yet?
Paul
June 26th, 2012
3:37 pm
John Birch
“Paul – way too literal man. It’s hyperbole to make the point that even at 100% it wouldn’t end the deficit. BTW, allowing the AJC’s owner, worth $12B or so to pay a lower rate on her $1B annual income than I pay on what I actually work to earn is criminal.”
The Right uses it a lot. Just as they now use the word “Only” when it comes to cuts and savings. “It’s ONLY $30 billion a year…”
It appears the Right uses it to say any tax increase at all (except on the lower and middle income earners) is unjustified because it’s “only” such and such an amount and wouldn’t solve the deficit.
It’ is hyperbole, but it comes across as exceedingly silly.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:38 pm
Marsh & McLennan
CEO compensation: $14 million
U.S. federal income taxes: $90 million refund
Marsh & McLennan has lowered its IRS bill by registering 105 subsidiaries in 20 countries considered
tax havens. A full 25 of these are registered in Bermuda, a tax-free zone so popular among insurance companies that some have taken to labeling it “the world’s risk capital.”
Bermuda levies no corporate income tax. Registering in Bermuda can also help insurance companies
avoid pesky insurance regulations.
Though Marsh & McLennan reports that more than 40 percent of its gross revenues come from the
United States and more than 60 percent of its assets are in this country, the company has reported
losses in its U.S. operations for each of the last three years. Successful shifting of its profits to Bermuda and other offshore locations has allowed the company to report strong global profits while avoiding paying any U.S. federal corporate income taxes since 2004.
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:38 pm
Funny when lefties imply it’s republicans or conservatives who can’t think, when you consider it’s republicans/conservatives/libertarians who take personal responsibility for their lives, and it’s the getalifes, JoeHusseins, and JamVets who want government to be their sugar daddy.
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
3:38 pm
Obama inviting Republican Congressman to ride in the back of the bus
not intended to be a factual statement.
“Finally we got this car up on level ground. And, yes, it’s a little beat up. It needs to go to the body shop. It’s got some dents; it needs a tune-up. But it’s pointing in the right direction. And now we’ve got the Republicans tapping us on the shoulder, saying, we want the keys back.
“You can’t have the keys back. You don’t know how to drive. You can ride with us if you want, but you got to sit in the backseat. We’re going to put middle-class America in the front seat. We’re looking out for them.”
Brosephus™
June 26th, 2012
3:38 pm
Mr_B
You said it before I could…
————-
Paul
You do get the credit for being part of the creative team.
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
3:39 pm
“Given that no one here has expressed such a desire — and you admit to that — then where did the notion come from that that’s something that “a lot of libs” want?”
I can’t say where the notion came from, JHM. It wasn’t me who said that. I simply said it would not surprise me if not a few Democratic politicians had that desire and Scout subsequently provided proof of at least one.
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:39 pm
I think your post count on this blog exceeds mine by a factor of about 1,000, so right-back-atcha there big boy….
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
3:39 pm
Rob Portman would be a great VP
EJ Moosa
June 26th, 2012
3:40 pm
Paul,
It would be wrong for Romney to do it as well.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:40 pm
Wow, Jm. You really got me with your evidence there. That retort was, how do I put this in a politically correct way just for you, your speed.
John Birch
June 26th, 2012
3:40 pm
Hussein – I understand that, that socialized health care isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. If I remember correctly USINUK never did answer my question wondering why all the Brits that could afford it purchased supplemental insurance if the basic national plan was so good.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
3:41 pm
B. Shockley — “Funny when lefties imply it’s republicans or conservatives who can’t think”
Funnier even when righties get pwned with their own snark and then come back QQing.
“when you consider it’s republicans/conservatives/libertarians who take personal responsibility for their lives”
Objection! Opposing counsel is assuming facts not in evidence.
“and it’s the getalifes, JoeHusseins, and JamVets who want government to be their sugar daddy.”
Survey says . . . BZZZZZZZZT!
One, two, three strikes and you’re out, Benny.
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:41 pm
LMAO at Stands…says “not intended to be factual statement” then proves it to be factual.
Good thing Liberals are so funny, else they would just be completely useless……
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
3:41 pm
I wonder if Mitt Romney really meant that “we should let Detroit go bankrupt”?
It gets even worse. The inveterate liar said that he would have saved Detroit.
And the guys is truly no smarter thatn our average GOP blogger here.
When pressed on how he would have done that, take a wild guess what Flip Flopper’s answer was?
I am convinced that Mr Pretzel Spine has cranial rectal syndrome…
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/mitt-romney-says-he-would-have-saved-detroit-still-vague-on-how.php
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:42 pm
Hussein just doesn’t grip the fact that just because he makes assertions doesn’t mean they are true.
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
3:42 pm
Rob Portman would be a great VP
Bush’s OMB Director? Oh please please please.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
3:43 pm
Taxpayer
You’re of very weak intellect. I’m sorry. Be like Obama. Blame your parents or your schooling.
But a company’s tax bill in any given year is irrelevant to the CEO’s salary, in a single year, or ever
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:43 pm
“And the guys is truly no smarter thatn our average GOP blogger here.”
But, also like the average GOP blogger here, he is about 100 times more affluent than JamVet…
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:43 pm
Stanley Black & Decker
CEO compensation: $32.6 million
U.S. federal income taxes: $75 million refund
His big bonus fueled by 4000 job cuts no doubt.
They BOTH suck
June 26th, 2012
3:44 pm
John Birch
So all the low ranking enlisted personnel who based on their salary and EITC (If they qualify) all vote Democrat?
Really?
Do tell
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
3:46 pm
Towncrier — “I can’t say where the notion came from, JHM. It wasn’t me who said that. I simply said it would not surprise me if not a few Democratic politicians had that desire and Scout subsequently provided proof of at least one.”
Be honest, please. He provided proof of *one.* And one is not “a few.”
Further, I asked him to provide proof of posters *here* who thought that, and he failed to even *try* to posit anyone. Frankly, I think he’s being both dishonest and dishonorable, and I’m pretty close to just disregarding his future posts.
I think you’re a better person than 0311, and I’d hope you wouldn’t unnecessarily tar yourself with his views.
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:46 pm
“His big bonus fueled by 4000 job cuts no doubt.”
AJC laid off a wad of folks last year. Funny how Bookman never wants to blog about that…..
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
3:47 pm
This almost deserves to be in the News of the Weird.
The Tea Party in Las Cruces, NM met with Representative Steve Pearce’s office urging him to support a constitutional amendment to overturn the disgraceful Citizen’s United ruling.
Hallelujah. It is good to see that there are some Republicans of conscience, who are sick of this corporate owned government and want a return to we the people being the sovereigns in this land…
Welcome to the Occupation
June 26th, 2012
3:47 pm
Chuck:
I don’t know, but I’ll tell you this. I’m going to think twice about how much time I spend on a discussion section where inanities like the following are the norm:
“when you consider it’s republicans/conservatives/libertarians who take personal responsibility for their lives, and it’s the getalifes, JoeHusseins, and JamVets who want government to be their sugar daddy”
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
3:47 pm
then proves it to be factual.
Obama never said “back of the bus.”
I leave it to others as to why you (and thousands of online conservatives) fibbed about that particular phrase.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
3:47 pm
J. Birch — “Hussein – I understand that, that socialized health care isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. If I remember correctly USINUK never did answer my question wondering why all the Brits that could afford it purchased supplemental insurance if the basic national plan was so good.”
Lots of countries with socialized care offer supplemental plans, and IIRC, they’re often *private* plans.
No one here has asserted that socialized care is *perfect,* but it’s better that what we have now.
Mr_B
June 26th, 2012
3:48 pm
I think your post count on this blog exceeds mine by a factor of about 1,000, so right-back-atcha there big boy…
POST ENVY!!!!!!!!!!
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:48 pm
“and I’m pretty close to just disregarding his future posts.”
If you would extend me the same courtesy, I’d sure appreciate it.
Thanks in advance.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:48 pm
Jm,
Your posts appear to contain nothing but personal attacks. I suspect there is a good reason for that and I believe it is because that is all you are capable of providing.
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
3:48 pm
I guess either Welcome to the occupations has either deemed me unworthy to respond to or his has stopped his blogging break to go back and lead the revolution. I can just picture him with his sandles, greasy pony tail with the “CHE” t-shirt that Mommy bought for her little darling. I guess all the fun is over and I am out.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
3:48 pm
B. Shockley — “Hussein just doesn’t grip the fact that just because he makes assertions doesn’t mean they are true.”
And neither do you, especially when you’re making assertions about what other posters think, believe and want.
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:49 pm
Stands, you can do your best to try and spin that…but we’re all laughing at you.
Paul
June 26th, 2012
3:49 pm
EJ Moosa 3:40
You win the prize for the first direct answer to a question today!
You are the ONLY one here, or from what I can tell from what’s repeated here, on radio or television, who has taken that position.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
3:50 pm
B. Shockley — “If you would extend me the same courtesy, I’d sure appreciate it.”
Denied. I don’t do it as a *courtesy* to the person I’m ignoring.
“Thanks in advance.”
Rejected in real time.
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:52 pm
“especially when you’re making assertions about what other posters think, believe and want”
Funny how it never concerns you, or triggers a response, when the usual lib suspects make the same assertions and assumptions.
Which makes you a blind partisan…which is especially ironic, given today’s topic………..
Justice Scalia
June 26th, 2012
3:52 pm
Can’t wait for your comments after Thursday, Jay! You make me laugh.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:52 pm
Chesapeake Energy
Tax breaks subsidize billionaire
CEO’s absurd pay packages
CEO compensation: $21 million
U.S. federal income taxes: $0
Chesapeake Energy paid nothing in federal taxes in 2010, despite $2.8 billion in U.S. pre-tax profits.
The company, the second-largest U.S. producer of natural gas, has historically been the recipient of
massive tax breaks designed to bolster domestic energy production. Businessweek calculates that
Chesapeake paid an average tax rate of 0.3 percent from 2002 to 2006.
These tax breaks have helped subsidize outrageous pay deals for CEO Aubrey McClendon, the 332nd richest American, with a net worth of $1.2 billion.
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:53 pm
Hussein, I really get under your skin, don’t I? Let’s me know I’m scoring points…thanks…
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
3:53 pm
Do not feed the attention troll.
socialized health care isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
Birch, come on down to the VA Hospital on Clairmont with me sometime and I’ll show you how it rocks.
You’ll be absolutely sick (get it?) when you figure out that you have to go back and pay through the nose for second rate care! Presuming that you can even get it…
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
3:54 pm
we’re all laughing at you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majestic_plural
They BOTH suck
June 26th, 2012
3:54 pm
Chuck
We you not calling others out for insults just a few minutes ago?
Don’t be the pot………..
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
3:55 pm
Do not feed the attention troll.
And above all, do not ask about guaranteed annuities that beat the deal you get with Social Security.
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:55 pm
Taxpayer, unless you can document that Chesapeake Energy violated current tax law, which Barack has had 3.5 years to change if he has a problem with it……………your posts have absolutely no relevance (as usual)
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 26th, 2012
3:55 pm
“Chesapeake Energy paid nothing in federal taxes in 2010, despite $2.8 billion in U.S. pre-tax profits”
What about all the sales tax they paid.
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
3:55 pm
“By the way, in case it was lost, that video proves that Republicans want voter ID laws for reasons other than the ones they have been touting. And, JUST COINCIDENCE, but those reasons are exactly the same as Democrats have portrayed them – It’s about getting Republicans more of an advantage in elections.”
Sorry, Adam, but that video (all 13 seconds of it) proves no such thing. Would you mind providing the full context for that man’s statement for us here (or is that disagreeable to you)?
And if you want anyway to claim that Republican politicians are deliberately trying (colluding) to disenfranchise voters, then you will likewise have to concede the possibility that Democratic politicians are trying (colluding) to enfranchise voters who should not vote – unless you want to make the absurd claim that Democratic politicians are morally better than their Republican counterparts (which I will be happy to falsify with a great number of documented instances to the contrary).
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:56 pm
Stands likes to document all the times I made him/her look foolish.
Welcome to the Occupation
June 26th, 2012
3:56 pm
Yeah, I’d say capitalism has proven its superiority, obviously …
Structural unemployment in US soaring
http://www.cnbc.com/id/47965065
OECD raises red flag on U.S. long-term unemployment
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The lengthy spells many Americans are spending without work risk leaving a lasting scar of higher unemployment on the U.S. economy and training programs are needed to avert the damage, the OECD said on Tuesday.
The warning from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development comes against the backdrop of stalled U.S. jobs growth and an uptick in the unemployment rate in May.
In a report on the U.S. economy, the Paris-based OECD estimated the unemployment rate which the economy could sustain without generating inflation at 6.1 percent, up from 5.7 percent in 2007. In May, the rate stood at 8.2 percent.
“However, structural unemployment may well already have risen more than this estimate would suggest, and there is a risk that it could increase still further, given the still high levels of long-term unemployment,” the OECD said.
Before the 2007-2009 recession, many economists believed the so-called natural or structural rate of unemployment was around 5 percent.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
3:57 pm
ebay
CEO compensation: $12.4 million
U.S. federal income taxes: $131 million refund
Tax avoidance has always been a key motivator behind the development of e-commerce. So it’s hardly
a surprise that eBay, the world’s largest online marketplace, also turns out to be a major tax dodger.
Last year the firm received a $131 million tax refund, despite U.S. pre-tax profits of $848 million.
It looks like taxes, or the lack thereof, are quite the motivating factor in some CEO’s compensation.
PJ
June 26th, 2012
3:57 pm
I wish I could get away with only paying sales tax. Must be nice.
Paul
June 26th, 2012
3:58 pm
John Birch
“If I remember correctly USINUK never did answer my question wondering why all the Brits that could afford it purchased supplemental insurance if the basic national plan was so good.”
The system was designed to do the most good for the most people, just like some private insurance here is designed. So people can either pay the money and purchase a replacement policy here, or those here and in the UK can purchase a supplemental policy.
Ben Shockley
June 26th, 2012
3:58 pm
Stands thinks social security is a good return on an investment of 12.4% of your annual salary, for life.
ANd he can’t figure out why people point and laugh while he’s riding his scooter to work at Trader Joe’s…
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
3:58 pm
“1) Were they challenged in the courts at that time?”
Not if that was before the SCOTUS accorded itself the right to judicial review in 1803.
Brosephus™
June 26th, 2012
3:58 pm
dB
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
3:58 pm
You know what democrats and liberals are terrified of?
Romney could turn out to be such a great president and do such a good job for the economy that they would be relegated to the back bench for 12 or more years
And that scares them, so they fear monger saying Romney is bush 2.0 when that is an outright lie
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
3:59 pm
B. Shockley — “Funny how it never concerns you”
Wrong.
“or triggers a response”
You’d be surprised what I think, but don’t always have the time to say here.
“when the usual lib suspects make the same assertions and assumptions.”
I took one to task earlier this morning, but since you didn’t see it, I’m sure you won’t believe that it happened.
“Which makes you a blind partisan…which is especially ironic, given today’s topic………..”
Given that I spent more than the first 20 years of my voting life supporting the GOP, and about a dozen years *volunteering* for them, that makes you wrong once more, Champ.
You don’t know anything about me or what I think, and your guesses are almost always wrong, Shockley. If you were more of an adult, and more given to adult discussion than to adolescent e-peen measuring, you might have found that out by now.
Steve - USA ("None of the Above")
June 26th, 2012
4:00 pm
“I wish I could get away with only paying sales tax. Must be nice”
It’s the standard mantra around here to prove everyone is contributing their fair share.
PJ
June 26th, 2012
4:01 pm
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people @3:58 pm
I’ve know Mr. Bush and Mr. Romney you’re no Bush.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
4:01 pm
B. Shockley — “Hussein, I really get under your skin, don’t I?”
No, sonny. You just remind me of myself at your age.
“Let’s me know I’m scoring points…thanks…”
Punkin, your supposed ’score’ isn’t even on my radar.
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
4:02 pm
“Be honest, please. He provided proof of *one.* And one is not “a few.”
I was expressing an opinion (again, based on human nature and assuming most people would not admit as much), not trying to prove that opinion was true. But I may decide to oblige you on that count. If one has publicly admitted it, perhaps a few others have as well.
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
4:02 pm
Yawn. You can post those guaranteed annuities (with COLAs, survivor bennies, etc.) that beat the SS deal any old time you like.