Octopus Overlords

Rip wrote:
The corporations are enabled by the politicians who have sold out to the corporations.

The way I see it the only way to reign in the corporations is to reign in the politicians who we allow to use the corporate dollar to brainwash us.

Combustible Lemur wrote:Okay, so run for office without any corporate influence. Good luck.

sent from incredible'

Kraken wrote:

Rip wrote:
The corporations are enabled by the politicians who have sold out to the corporations.

I think most of us would agree that both parties are in the pocket of the ruling elite, and that's what the nucking futs are protesting.

The way I see it the only way to reign in the corporations is to reign in the politicians who we allow to use the corporate dollar to brainwash us.

And here most of us will not agree. Throw out the bums who are in bed with the corporations, replace them with ones who are not, and empower them to change the equation. If that is even possible. The system may be too hopelessly corrupt to reform.

RunningMn9 wrote: The problem is the People who have sat idly by and let it happen.

I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.

Rip wrote:But the nucking futs haven't a clue what to do about it. When they produce a viable anti-establishment candidate call me. That is what appealed most to me about Cain until it became obvious he has too much baggage.

Rip wrote:

Kraken wrote:

Rip wrote:
The corporations are enabled by the politicians who have sold out to the corporations.

I think most of us would agree that both parties are in the pocket of the ruling elite, and that's what the nucking futs are protesting.

The way I see it the only way to reign in the corporations is to reign in the politicians who we allow to use the corporate dollar to brainwash us.

And here most of us will not agree. Throw out the bums who are in bed with the corporations, replace them with ones who are not, and empower them to change the equation.

When they produce a viable anti-establishment candidate call me. That is what appealed most to me about Cain until it became obvious he has too much baggage.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Rip wrote:But the nucking futs haven't a clue what to do about it. When they produce a viable anti-establishment candidate call me. That is what appealed most to me about Cain until it became obvious he has too much baggage.

You mock them for not having an answer, and yours was supporting a former CEO?

Classic.

Zarathud wrote:

Rip wrote:

Kraken wrote:

Rip wrote:
The corporations are enabled by the politicians who have sold out to the corporations.

I think most of us would agree that both parties are in the pocket of the ruling elite, and that's what the nucking futs are protesting.

The way I see it the only way to reign in the corporations is to reign in the politicians who we allow to use the corporate dollar to brainwash us.

And here most of us will not agree. Throw out the bums who are in bed with the corporations, replace them with ones who are not, and empower them to change the equation.

When they produce a viable anti-establishment candidate call me. That is what appealed most to me about Cain until it became obvious he has too much baggage.

Expecting Cain to remove corporate influence in politics is like expecting the headsman to reduce capital punishment. He might be anti-establishment, but only because he wants to cut out the middle-man.

Rip wrote:Expecting ANY viable candidate on either side to remove or even decrease corporate influence is a pipe dream.

Rip wrote:
But the nucking futs haven't a clue what to do about it. When they produce a viable anti-establishment candidate call me.

Kraken wrote:

Rip wrote:
But the nucking futs haven't a clue what to do about it. When they produce a viable anti-establishment candidate call me.

I am curious to see what, if anything, they come up with as the movement matures and finds focus (as I believe it will at least try to do over the winter, while its profile is lower). Perhaps their answer won't involve candidates at all. As Bill Maher told some Occupy kids (according to Esquire), "the minute you put on a suit, go indoors, and hire lobbyists, you've lost."

Yes, I read Esquire. For the fashion advice.

Rip wrote:

Kraken wrote:

Rip wrote:
But the nucking futs haven't a clue what to do about it. When they produce a viable anti-establishment candidate call me.

I am curious to see what, if anything, they come up with as the movement matures and finds focus (as I believe it will at least try to do over the winter, while its profile is lower). Perhaps their answer won't involve candidates at all. As Bill Maher told some Occupy kids (according to Esquire), "the minute you put on a suit, go indoors, and hire lobbyists, you've lost."

Yes, I read Esquire. For the fashion advice.

Certainly a fundamental change in the system would seem to match more with their mission if you can call it that, but I am at a loss as to how you do that. Things like manipulated congressional districts and quid pro quo support from PACs and Unions etc. are certainly fundamental problems but I fail to see how they expect to effect the change of it.

The system isn't inclined to fix itself and it has all the power. The only way short of revolution is through candidates willing to pass the required laws and would find all the existent politicians from both sides would resist that tooth and nail.

The fact that they can't even deal with their own leadership leads me to doubt their ability to provide national leadership.

Rip wrote:He was the most out from the beltway guy. Give me a non-beltway guy who wasn't a CEO that can win and I am all in. Actually I would rather a former military guy with good foreign relations skills like say Colin Powell.

Sadly as noted in today's climate no one without corporate/beltway support is viable.

Rip wrote:The only way short of revolution is through candidates willing to pass the required laws and would find all the existent politicians from both sides would resist that tooth and nail.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Rip wrote:He was the most out from the beltway guy. Give me a non-beltway guy who wasn't a CEO that can win and I am all in. Actually I would rather a former military guy with good foreign relations skills like say Colin Powell.

Sadly as noted in today's climate no one without corporate/beltway support is viable.

He was also the most "Completely In Bed With Corporate America" guy. Which is what you are complaining about.

LordMortis wrote:As far as running for president goes, at this point I wonder why there isn't a viral approach to finding someone who isn't politically inside/tied to lobbyists.

Rip wrote:True, but I consider out of the beltway considerably more important. As was noted corporations do what they are allowed to do. The changes need to be made inside it and an insider would never do that. I think there is more of a chance of finding someone who genuinely wants to see it changed from the corporate world than from from the current politicians.

RunningMn9 wrote:

Rip wrote:True, but I consider out of the beltway considerably more important. As was noted corporations do what they are allowed to do. The changes need to be made inside it and an insider would never do that. I think there is more of a chance of finding someone who genuinely wants to see it changed from the corporate world than from from the current politicians.

What you are saying makes absolutely no sense.

You started off by saying that the problem is our politicians because they are owned by and serve the ruling elite (and Corporations). Being in the beltway itself isn't the problem - outside of the fact that those currently in the beltway are bought and paid for by the ruling elite. Being outside the beltway itself should only be a boon in the event that being outside the beltway has taken you out of the pockets of the ruling elite.

How could that be true for a candidate that IS ONE OF THE RULING ELITE?

His being inside our outside the beltway is irrelevant - when the problem you identified is being in the pocket of the ruling elite. What matters is whether he will make the problem you identified better or worse. Of all the candidates you could select from on the GOP side, with respect to this particular problem - Herman Cain is the worst possible choice you could have made.

Someone that genuinely wants to see it changed from the corporate world will be trying to change it so that it favors the corporate world MORE than it already does. Cain will make it easier for corporations to knowingly kill and maim their customers (and continue to be able to do business, i.e. GM). Cain will make it easier to expand hydraulic fracturing operations that put our natural water supplies at risk. Cain will make it easier to gamble with your money and bring the global economy to its knees in the name of the holy pursuit of profits.

If you are looking for a candidate to return power to the People (and not the soulless megaorganizations that they create to make money), Cain is the opposite of your guy.

They're all the opposite of your guy, but he's the worst of the bunch (from that perspective).

Kraken wrote:

LordMortis wrote:As far as running for president goes, at this point I wonder why there isn't a viral approach to finding someone who isn't politically inside/tied to lobbyists.

There is.

RunningMn9 wrote:That is the opposite of what you've been saying. The politicians rig the game in favor of big business because that is the only way they get to keep being politicians. He politicians aren't in charge of the game, they are the pawns. I can't imagine how you could believe that it is the reverse.

LordMortis wrote:

Kraken wrote:

LordMortis wrote:As far as running for president goes, at this point I wonder why there isn't a viral approach to finding someone who isn't politically inside/tied to lobbyists.

There is.

Awesome.

GreenGoo wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:That is the opposite of what you've been saying. The politicians rig the game in favor of big business because that is the only way they get to keep being politicians. He politicians aren't in charge of the game, they are the pawns. I can't imagine how you could believe that it is the reverse.

Yeah, that's a head scratcher, for sure.

RunningMn9 wrote:That is the opposite of what you've been saying. The politicians rig the game in favor of big business because that is the only way they get to keep being politicians. He politicians aren't in charge of the game, they are the pawns. I can't imagine how you could believe that it is the reverse.

RunningMn9 wrote:Hilarious. Read up on what happened with Medicare Part D and tell me that again with a straight face.

RunningMn9 wrote:Hilarious. Read up on what happened with Medicare Part D and tell me that again with a straight face.

LordMortis wrote:Someone please help me understand.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/busin ... ivity.html" target="_blank

LordMortis wrote:

RunningMn9 wrote:Hilarious. Read up on what happened with Medicare Part D and tell me that again with a straight face.

Do we blame this on Obama Care, or Bush, or Clinton?... Or maybe the Congress that sat through all of them?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... 18c6c07027" target="_blank

I'm a little surprised the it's "only" 22 Billion and that 22 Billion is the equivalent of a 27% paycut to doctors.

It's also another indicator of how bad things get when you borrow and spend and borrow and spend and borrow and spend.

Maybe it's time to get tough on the medical supply companies and big Pharm.

RunningMn9 wrote:BTW, that has nothing to do with what I was referring to when I mentioned Medicare Part D. I'm talking about the changes to Medicare made by the Bush Administration to address the prescription issue back in his first term. And I'm talking about how the actual legislation came about (and who wrote it), and who benefitted the most.

"The pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote the bill," says Jones. "The bill was over 1,000 pages. And it got to the members of the House that morning, and we voted for it at about 3 a.m. in the morning," remembers Jones.

Why did the vote finally take place at 3 a.m.?

"Well, I think a lot of the shenanigans that were going on that night, they didn't want on national television in primetime," according to Burton.

"I've been in politics for 22 years," says Jones, "and it was the ugliest night I have ever seen in 22 years."...

...It certainly wasn't ugly for the drug lobby which invested more than $10 million in campaign contributions during the last election and has been a source of lucrative employment opportunities for congressmen when they leave office.

Former senators Dennis Deconcini, D-Ariz., and Steve Symms, R-Idaho, and former congressmen like Tom Downey, D-N.Y.; Vic Fazio, D-Calif.; Bill Paxon, R-N.Y., and former House Minority Leader Robert Michel, R-Ill., all registered as lobbyists for the drug industry and worked on the prescription drug bill.

"I can tell you that when the bill passed, there were better than 1,000 pharmaceutical lobbyists working on this," says Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich...

...Why was the drug lobby was so interested in this bill and what did it have to gain? Ron Pollack, the executive director of Families USA, a nonpartisan health care watchdog group, says it all boiled down to a key provision in the legislation.

It prohibited Medicare and the federal government from using its vast purchasing power to negotiate lower prices directly from the drug companies.

"The key goal was to make sure there'd be no interference in the drug companies' abilities to charge high prices and to continue to increase those prices," says Pollack.

Pollack says there's no question that this was prompted by the pharmaceutical lobby.

"They were the ones who wanted to make sure Medicare could charge high prices and to continue to increase those prices," he says.

The drug industry says that competition among private insurance plans that service the Medicare program help keep prices low. But Families USA reported in a January study that Medicare patients are being charged nearly 60 percent more for the top 20 drugs than veterans pay under a program run by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

For example, Lipitor, a popular cholesterol drug, the cheapest Medicare price is $785 for a year's supply — 50 percent more than the VA's price of $520.

For Zocor, another cholesterol drug, the best Medicare price is $1,485 for a year's supply. The same drug only costs $127 a year under the VA's plan.

He fully acknowledges that he and other bankers are mostly responsible for the country’s housing mess.

As a regional vice president for Chase Home Finance in southern Florida, Theckston shoveled money at home borrowers. In 2007, his team wrote $2 billion in mortgages, he says. Sometimes those were “no documentation” mortgages...


...Especially when mortgages were securitized and sold off to investors, he said, senior bankers turned a blind eye to shortcuts.

“The bigwigs of the corporations knew this, but they figured we’re going to make billions out of it, so who cares? ...

...He says that some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans...

...Theckston, who has a shelf full of awards that he won from Chase, such as “sales manager of the year,” showed me his 2006 performance review. It indicates that 60 percent of his evaluation depended on him increasing high-risk loans.