Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  3 4 5 6 7  Next ›  Last »  (8 total)
07:43 PM on 09/16/2009
"Don't hate the player, hate the game."

I don't give them so much of a pass as you do, Mr. Uygur. It's not as if these players are mere helpless victims who must play or be played. If there were more who lamented (and lobbied) for change so that the game would work more efficiently and effectively for Americans and the country on the whole, I might agree. Instead they vigorously defend this game. They strenuously resist any and all reform with all the might at their disposal, which as we all know is very formidable (an understatement).
07:30 PM on 09/16/2009
All Capitalists aspire to be Corporatists. Market forces themselves encourage this. Only efficient and effective government made somehow free of the unrelenting pressures of capitalism can prevent corporatism.

Real campaign finance reform and some kind of limits on lobbyists with go far to solve this problem.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:10 PM on 09/16/2009
This is a system of legalized corruption, what else?
"I give you money to support my position!" You do it. Any questions?
Another example of the stupidy of the americans to always tiptoe around this issue as if it is SO complicated! What's wrong with you, people? This is called BRIBERY! And it must be criminalized or else! Else, you see the hole we are in...
06:42 PM on 09/16/2009
It's because the answer's too easy that it just slides on by us. I offer myself as a shining example to others on how to get out of this mess: I have not watched a campaign ad or a debate or a political speech in about a decade. And the world is much better off for it. Why don't the rest of you join me - and campaign contributions will be a thing of the past.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:15 PM on 09/16/2009
"Capitalists believe in choice, free markets and competition."

You're more than a little wrong on this, Cenk. Like many Americans, you're confusing capitalism and free-enterprise. Capitalism is the philosophy and strategy of the placement of large blocks of capital. Nothing more. Free-enterprise, on the other hand, is the industrious & creative approach to business that we Americans actually embrace...
07:44 AM on 09/17/2009
No doubt you're right, but Cenk is trying to reclaim the word "capitalism" as meaning something
basically good (free enterprise) and separating out the "bad" part with a different word (corporatism).
While Michael Moore seems to be willing to lump the word "capitalism" with the corporatist behavior.
All semantics, but important semantics...

But what seems MOST important is to draw the distinction between these two kinds of behavior, whatever you call it. To shake up the language a bit, either with Moore's usage or Cenk's, may help people to start to think, and to see how the politicians and media HAVE been bought, and are working against our best interests.
10:32 AM on 09/17/2009
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:24 PM on 09/17/2009
The problem - again - is that he is wrong. And it's not just semantics. Cenk is attempting to suggest that corporatism is bad (which it is, no argument there) by suggesting that capitalism is 'different and good' (which it is not).

Cenk needs to recognize that, indeed, capitalism as it is practiced today is not good. What he's actually describing is free-enterprise...

The GOP has successfully confused the American public into thinking that 'capitalism' is basically the same thing as 'free-enterprise'. It is not. Capitalism - as it is practiced today - is bad, countryless, and essentially unpatriotic in that it does not recognize borders; free-enterprise, on the other hand, is domestic in nature, recognizes its own borders, is patriotic, and is damn good stuff.
06:08 PM on 09/16/2009
Well Cenk, I think you have a very low and limited vision of "human nature" as well as a seriously flawed sense of ethics. Honestly, I think that is at the heart of our problems today. We've dumbed ourselves down to the point where the behavior you note in your column becomes expected simply because we're not intelligent enough to expect more.
06:06 PM on 09/16/2009
Money is $peech and Corporations are persons. They have millions more times the $peech than we do, and they are grand giant persons a million times the size of us mere mortals. So they can drown out our voices and easily stomp out the rest of us if we cause them to much trouble. And thanks to the Supreme Court, it's all perfectly legal.
05:56 PM on 09/16/2009
Big I and Old Max

Big I took a jet to Montana,
And bot him a Senator there.
And when he was thru
Away Big I flew
With Good Old Max B in his pocket.

Arriving in DC forth-with,
Big I tossed Old Max on the Floor.
He said, "Listen, Max,
I want you to wax
And polish this Bill how I like it."

Old Max, he got right down to work,
His duty to Big I in mind.
He lined up his team
According to scheme
And the 3 million bucks in his pocket.
05:42 PM on 09/16/2009
As a conservative and more importantly an American, I completely agree that both our politicians and corporations are acting rationally when the get in bed together. I do not know what to do about it except to encourage the media to expose it all and make it transparent. I think you do not use your own analysis when you say the public option will be to our benefit because the government run option and all of the details of its implementation will become subject to the same influx of money. So the only approved replacement knee joint will be the one that comes from the supplier that buys-off the responsible congressional leaders. Science will never be the determining factor. Look at the tax code. Look what happened to the carbon legislation. Please please tell me why health care would be any different. If other countries can do it then their govt doesn't work like ours.
08:02 PM on 09/16/2009
Money out of politics!

The Founders did not intend for Money to have a louder voice than the People, yet that is what has happened.
Shameless liberal
05:39 PM on 09/16/2009
Here are some laws that were in place at the beginning of our Republic which limit corporate power and the abuses which inevitably follow. Just putting these laws back on the books would solve most of our corporate problems. Write your congressman.

* Corporate charters (licenses to exist) were granted for a limited time and could be revoked promptly for violating laws.

* Corporations could engage only in activities necessary to fulfill their chartered purpose.

* Corporations could not own stock in other corporations nor own any property that was not essential to fulfilling their chartered purpose.

* Corporations were often terminated if they exceeded their authority or caused public harm.

* Owners and managers were responsible for criminal acts committed on the job.

* Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making.

Surprisingly simple. Why can't this happen.
05:47 PM on 09/16/2009
If you think it's bad now just wait for the Supreme Court to rule this fall on political contributions by corporations. The fall into fascism will then be complete.
08:05 PM on 09/16/2009
Funny how little press this major decision is getting, eh? Actually, no surprise at all.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:31 PM on 09/16/2009
"But in order to have capitalism we must have choice. "

Choice is an illusion. Capitalism is rationalization for inequality. So most of your argument is rationalization. And mostly, this affects women, minorities and the poor.

This is another 4 years of a lack of real representation from our government, at its best.
05:52 PM on 09/16/2009
"Choice is an illusion."

WOAH! Did you decide to post that or did
your hands just automatically start typing-
like a machine whose switch had been
turned on--while you sat there and watched?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
Civilization is for weaklings.
07:13 PM on 09/16/2009
WOAH! Did you write that yourself, or did
you copy and paste it from somewhere
else that had the margins set narrower
than Huffpost's comment margins? Or
was it an attempt at free-form verse?
05:29 PM on 09/16/2009
Years ago, the auto makers found that when they had a really great selling and well priced vehicle, they could produce more of them and sell them on and on. This was good because the automaker made money, the employees were busy and secure and consumers were happy.

Then, sometime in the sixties, this philosophy changed. If an automaker found that they had a good selling vehicle, they would jack up the price to take advantage of the popularity of the vehicle. Then they would lament why the vehicle wasn't selling as good as before and start layoffs. Nobody gained.

We never seem to learn from our mistakes.
05:49 PM on 09/16/2009
I may be wrong, but wasn't it right about then (the 60's)
that a corporation, somewhere in the western states,
took over the employee retirement funds when they
bought the company and absorbed them into the
corporation rather than letting the employees have
their savings?

That was the first recollection I have of a company
severing its 'loyalty' ties to its employees. It spread
across the country after that.
05:28 PM on 09/16/2009
none of this is news....and as such, we need to make buying senators and congressman impossible . we need publicly funded campaigns of reduced duration and cost. we need term limits on senators and congressman. we need staggered mid term elections, we need national voting process conformity with a paper trail and lastly but possibly most importantly we need to either eliminate lobbying or force lobbying to done in public on the floor of the house or senate. we need a government that works for it's people and does so transparently...until that happens, what we have is what we are going to continue to get
05:22 PM on 09/16/2009
I agree with most of what you say. Good article, great points!
05:19 PM on 09/16/2009
As Will Rogers said, "We have the best congressmen money can buy!" I;m not so sure about the first part of that statement, but the second is certainly true. My California senator Weinstein, who has been a lifelong
liberal politician has taken a stand against the public part of Obama's health plan. It appears that even this
respected woman has succumbed to the pressures of the corporations and is going along with the
insurance industry and drug manufacturers in their efforts to destroy a public version, in spite of the clear
support of such a plan by the citizens of the U. S.. I am becoming pessimistic about the
future of our "democratic" society, which becomes increasingly like the banana republics to the south of us.