Tom said - "...is it better to just have complete free range for corporations to run our government."
Zandra says - Absolutely not!!!

Tom said - "People might argue that that's the way it is now..."
Zandra says - I argue that's a 2-way collusive street. (Don't you think the Fed, a private corporation, pretty much already runs the govt?) And I agree that it probably is going to get worse..

Why is it that when govt tries to 'fix' a problem, such as with McCain Feingold, they do it in the worst possible way for the maximum number of people? If they TRULY wanted to limit corporate influence I think they would seriously reconsider the corporate personhood issue, a more 'root-cause' problem, instead of putting the smackdown on a much broader range of the population. If a corporation operates only at the pleasure of the state and is not 'granted' the rights of individual citizens they wouldn't have that influence. (I also lean toward its riddance, from my current limited knowledge of it:) This isn't to say they wouldn't try to find other ways around the issue! This type of crap is waaaaaay toooooo much to the benefit of both the govt and the corporations to really expect them to maintain some sort of separation of biz and state. Or a complete, impenetrable firewall, preferably...

I saw a bit of it, would like to see the whole thing. I tolerate both of them ok already (for the most part!) and thought it was really quite good. I actually enjoyed the VP thing!

Tom, sorry to drift your thread but here it goes-

I don't know the details of this SCOTUS decision, but I do remember finding a lot of stuff to hate about the McCain/Feingold law back during the '08 primary campaign while researching the candidates. I think it does violate free speech, and is just bad in a plethora of ways and it's a good thing to be chipped away at. Even better, totally repealed...

That being said, I think this is another classic example of the Hegelian Dialectic at work. Here we are, busying ourselves bickering with each other over the wrong dang question. When, IMHO, we should be looking deeper at a corporation's status as an individual, with all the attending rights that guarantees, and deciding if maybe that needs to be modified.

Clearly, any company is made up of individuals who do have endowed individual rights and can conduct biz as they see fit, short of violating anyone else's rights . At the same time, a company that goes much beyond sole proprietor is, clearly, more than just the sum of its parts and becomes an entity in and of itself. To me, the real question is, is that 'entity' entitled to Constitutional protection as an individual?

Personally, I'm not so sure if I like that. It seems to be the enabler of corporate lobbying, which is something that people of almost any political persuasion agree has been damaging to our country. If a very wide range of us agree on that, I think we MUST be on to something. Something that they want to protect. "They" being the govt ruling elites, and the big-biz oligarchs, who have come together in what I believe to be an unconstitutional alliance to the detriment of us, as a free people.

I don't know enough about this subject to be totally convinced of this, but at least I think this discussion gets us closer to the heart of the problem. How indeed do we best protect everyone's rights equally, and how indeed do we go about funding campaigns in a way that best serves our society and our Republic?

Has anyone ever heard of 'corporate personhood'? I recently heard this term and that it has a lot to do with the existence of corporate lobbyists. Anyone know anything about this already? I haven't had much chance to look into it, but it seems very intriguing and like one of the true root causes of this type of bullcrap. Crib notes, anyone?

Also, do we think it's good, or maybe not good, that campaign dollars reside within the realm of 'free speech'. I have no opinion on this already, but seems like an interesting topic to explore as well...

First of all, thank you for the kudos! It's nice to hear that I really did help people learn something new.

Second of all, I share your disappointment with this whole healthcare thing. The current 'reform' is what I would consider an abject failure and a waste of many perfectly good trees. So far it has done nothing to address the actual problems, it has brought out some of the worst in our politicians, it is on track to actually make the situation worse in many ways and now they want to try to 'fix' it behind closed doors for final passage!!! If ever an abortion was necessary, this bill should just be aborted.

Tom, the good news is, in our country today, no bill signed, there is hardly a kid around who has zero access to care. People who are poor normally qualify for their state's medicaid program even if they're not currently on it or just don't realize they qualify. And there's schip that is specifically for kids, some of whom qualify well into their 20s now, and with parents who can make up to a couple times over the poverty line. In Pa, I believe you can make up to $60,000 per year and still qualify for schip! We have never made anywhere near that and have been able to find reasonable (compared to avg) insurance ourselves as a self-employed family. We did supplement for a time with PA's medicaid for our preemie son. I believe providing an insurance backstop for people of very modest means and children with big issues is a proper role for the states and our state taxes, which we pay into. I'm actually surprised, however that they never charged us any premium. I'm quite certain that we would not normally qualify and they did call it 'loophole' coverage or something, but it didn't even matter how much we made with his situation. Most people do get the help they need, thank goodness.

Dude, I would be completely insane if the stuff I read and talk about and debate here were not coupled with action. I could not learn what I'm learning and know what I know without action. I would feel very irresponsible without action.

I totally understand the burnout and from time to time you must take a break. (I am just re-emerging from a warm and wonderful holiday cocoon back on to the frying pan myself!) I am now the organizer of a group I joined in Jan '07, thinking it was a Ron Paul fan club. I go to the first meeting and they're showing a video on door-to-door canvassing and I switched parties so I could work on the campaign, and we're still going strong. I'm now involved with another group along with my hubby, he's becoming an assistant organizer and I'm on the candidacy committee. I plan to run for my precinct R committee seat this spring along with all the other stuff we do.

It's frustrating to me and inspiring all at the same time because I know I'm doing everything I can to make sure I am heard. I refuse to simply be a victim of the govt machine and I now understand that it's the job of citizens of a free society to make sure we don't allow that to happen to us. Freedom is not about doing whatever the freakin' heck we want, it's supposed to be about living in a society where people operate from the knowledge that, as individuals, we are expected to be held responsible and accountable for the things we choose to do and the things we choose to leave undone. Unfortunately, our society has been leaving our participation in self-governance undone lately and now we are responsible for paying the consequences of our inaction.

As for the charge that little if anything really changes from one admin to the next, you have hit the nail squarely on the head! I think I have pointed out the 'hegelian dialectic' before, but here is a link-
<a href="http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html" target="_blank">http://nord.twu.net/acl/dialectic.html
I have not read this particular site word for word, but what I've gotten thru so far has been a great explanation of this paradigm. Basically, it keeps the rabble (us) at each others' throats, to distract us from figuring out the correct questions we should be asking, and no matter what the outcome, the ruling class ends up being the true winners. Please take a look, it's long but you can get the gist with a good skimming.

I realize not everyone has the drive to be as active as the next guy, or can't because of their jobs, but we have a wonderful opportunity before us this year with the mid-term elections. The primaries are coming this spring and one of the best actions that any citizen can take is to educate themselves before the primary, ignore the party endorsements and really do your own homework, and go vote. Vote with knowledge, confidence, and your conscience.

Ok, I guess that's enough pep rally for now. Go get 'em tigers!

BTW, I think the next number after trillion is probably quadrillion. Here's to hoping we don't find that out the hard way!
Zandra

Yeah, I totally understand your points. I wish I could come up with something better... If I did, maybe that really would make me Queen of the Universe!!! ;-)

To clarify something from an earlier comment from Tom, I never actually advocated "mandating" the purchase of insurance in my proposed solutions. Even though I may have stated something along those lines during the set-up phase of my series, I have ultimately come to the firm belief that govt has absolutely no right to force any of us to buy something just because we are alive. (Car insurance is different, you don't have to be a driver, you don't have to buy a car.) Although with this penalizing proposal they seem to think they can regardless of the Constitution, and they certainly think they have every right to tax us half to death. At the very least, they should just call a tax a tax, and be done with it.

I, on the other hand, would incentivize the purchase of insurance to make it very attractive to do so at a young age, and if you refuse, then you accept full responsibility for your choice. And of course that still leaves us with the burning question of how does it get paid for if that individual can't fulfill their responsibility...

As far as them scrapping the penalty for not buying insurance from the final bill, I wouldn't be so sure... I wish they would just scrap the entire 4000 page bureaucratic nightmare and start over with things that actually make sense, will actually lower cost, actually improve accessibility to an appropriate amount of insurance, and help the people who actually do fall thru the cracks. And before they do any of that, please, please, please clean up the mess that already exists with Medicare/Medicaid fraud, abuse, and waste. Don't tell us that you're going to do it as part of a plan to help pay for a new plan, because that is completely bogus.

Tom,
I was wondering which you might prefer-
1) My idea of an individual being fully responsible for paying any healthcare bills they incur if they do not buy health insurance with family being responsible as a backup?
2) The possibility of being sent to jail for not buying heath insurance, as included in the now-passed house version of healthcare reform?

Everyone else, please feel free to chime in as well!

Yippee!!!

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLpmqO4xoHI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLpmqO4xoHI

A very 'interesting' video of Anita Dunn giving a tutorial on how to control the press during a campaign, as they successfully did during O's. Here's a little quote-

Very creepy...

"So it was very much, we controlled it as opposed to the press controlled it. And it did not always make us popular with the press. But we, increasingly, by the general election, very rarely did we communicate through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control." Anita Dunn

Looks like Joe Scarborough may be on to something-

"The White House isn’t attacking Fox news to attack Fox News. They’re playing the media. They’re saying ‘Please, don’t follow the ACORN stories. Don’t follow the Van Jones stories. Don’t follow any stories they bring up because they’re not a news organization." Joe Scarborough

This is the only link I could find-

<a href="http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-philbin/2009..." target="_blank">http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-philbin/2009...

It is dangerous for our country to abandon the rule of law. If Fox, or any other media org, is breaking the law, charges should be filed and it should be worked out in a lawful, Constitutional manner. The media needs to wake up and smell the coffee and start being independent and a true check on the system or we will all suffer.