DU Poll: Third Way or FDR?

[silvershadow]

Where should the party go?

78 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Third Way (Clinton) Corporations are people
	0 (0%)
	FDR man! (Sanders) Corporations are NOT people
	78 (100%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[hollysmom]

1. why are the Clinton supporters not voting?

[Unicorn]

13. The Correct the Record trolls don't work the night shift?

[grossproffit]

18. Yet, you just joined on Wednesday.

[Unicorn]

19. Thanks for warning me.

I'll watch out for them for the night shift.

Are you one? Hillary logo and all?

[silvershadow]

27. There feelings get hurt easily. They are cocooning now in insular little spaces where they can

control the narrative in their heads. The internet makes politics so much harder these days.

[cui bono]

37. Because they want Trump to win.

Or something.

.

[Lizzie Poppet]

39. Because the poll wasn't rigged in advance. (nt)

[brooklynite]

2. Provide evidence of Third Way's position, please

[silvershadow]

3. Public domain. Use it to learn. nt

[TM99]

11. Don't be fooled by this one.

They are not ignorant. They know the Clintons are founding members of the DLC/Third Way. They know all about New Democrats and neoliberalism.

They just don't care and don't want anyone else to know.

[silvershadow]

14. I know it. Sometimes I explain myself over and over as if I don't know so the information

gets out on the internet just one more time. Other times I'm short with them because Im busy or don' want to be drawn into another time-wasting pissing contest.

[rhett o rick]

4. While Clinton says she supports social justice within limits she is a strong advocate of

tough foreign policy. She has a neocon mind set, determined, by her own words, to spread democracy thru out the world by violence. After helping her good friend George Bush invade Iraq, supporting the use of mines and cluster bombs, she has the audacity to say that the Iraqi's should be thankful we gave them democracy.

She turns her backs on those that lost their homes when the banksters gambled and lost. She accepts the banksters money while telling the people she represents them.

She sells the world fracking (helping out her friends at Chevron) while people around the world dare to protest the destruction of their water supplies.

She and Bill have amassed an obscene amount of wealth they got clearly for quid pro quo.

Yet somehow you side with the wealthy in this class war. Do you think they will like you?

[silvershadow]

7. Righteous. nt

[JonLeibowitz]

17. Brooklynite *IS* the wealthy.

[PufPuf23]

16. Hillary Clinton is a neo-liberal. Third Way is a form of neo-liberalism.

Bernie Sanders and FDR / New Deal / Great Society liberal Democrats espouse Keynesian economics.

From wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism (or sometimes neo-liberalism)[1] is a term which has been used since the 1950s[2], but became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and 80s by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences[3] and critics[4] primarily in reference to the resurgence of 19th century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism.[5] Its advocates support extensive economic liberalization policies such as privatization, fiscal austerity, deregulation, free trade, and reductions in government spending in order to enhance the role of the private sector in the economy.[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] Neoliberalism is famously associated with the economic policies introduced by Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States.[7] The implementation of neoliberal policies and the acceptance of neoliberal economic theories in the 1970s are seen by some academics as the root of financialization, with the financial crisis of 2007–08 one of the ultimate results.[13][14][15][16][17]

The definition and usage of the term has changed over time.[6] It was originally an economic philosophy that emerged among European liberal scholars in the 1930s in an attempt to trace a so-called 'Third' or 'Middle Way' between the conflicting philosophies of classical liberalism and socialist planning.[18] The impetus for this development arose from a desire to avoid repeating the economic failures of the early 1930s, which were mostly blamed by neoliberals on the economic policy of classical liberalism. In the decades that followed, the use of the term neoliberal tended to refer to theories at variance with the more laissez-faire doctrine of classical liberalism, and promoted instead a market economy under the guidance and rules of a strong state, a model which came to be known as the social market economy.

clip

Opponents of neoliberalism commonly argue the following points:

Globalization can subvert nations' ability for self-determination.

The replacement of a government-owned monopoly with private companies, each supposedly trying to provide the consumer with better value service than all of its private competitors, removes the efficiency that can be gained from the economy of scale.[169]

Even if it could be shown that neoliberal capitalism increases productivity, it erodes the conditions in which production occurs long term, i.e., resources/nature, requiring expansion into new areas. It is therefore not sustainable within the world's limited geographical space.[170]

Exploitation: critics consider neo-liberal economics to promote exploitation and social injustice.

Negative economic consequences: Critics argue that neo-liberal policies produce economic inequality.[171]
Mass incarceration of the poor: some critics claim that neoliberal policies result in an expanding carceral state and the criminalization of poverty.[172][124]

Increase in corporate power: some organizations and economists believe neoliberalism, unlike liberalism, changes economic and government policies to increase the power of corporations, and a shift to benefit the upper classes.[173][174]

Anti-democratic: some scholars contend that neoliberalism undermines the basic elements of democracy.[175]
There are terrains of struggles for neoliberalism locally and socially. Urban citizens are increasingly deprived of the power to shape the basic conditions of daily life.[176]

Trade-led, unregulated economic activity and lax state regulation of pollution lead to environmental impacts or degradation.[177]
Deregulation of the labor market produces flexibilization and casualization of labor, greater informal employment, and a considerable increase in industrial accidents and occupational diseases.[178]

more

[Baobab]

33. Read this:

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTRANETTRADE/Resources/C13.pdf

[seekthetruth]

5. Good god.

The Clintons have even said they have faith in the free market. My question is how in the world is the free market going to solve climate change when so many auto manufacturers make hand over fist selling oversized vehicles to oversized Americans who are brainwashed everyday to think bigger is better? It isn't going to happen. Demand will aways be there, and until an external body from the free market, the state, steps in and makes it economically unfeasible to continue production of such products that run on harmful fuels we're going to continue down this disastrous path.

We're nearing the tipping point, and we want a president who won't ban fracking? Senseless, and stupid.

That is the Third Way.

[seekthetruth]

6. Some products and services are too big for the market to efficiently handle.

Especially the ones we all depend on. We're not isolated population centers any longer. Our population has skyrocketed. We impact the earth and each other in so many more ways than we did even a hundred years ago. Hence, the necessity for more collective living. Our resources aren't infinite.

[silvershadow]

10. Plus she supports the TPP, in which the Corporate State further strengthens. Good post.nt

[Baobab]

34. Climate change is a huge opportunity to sell people water, drugs for new diseases

and "maximize the value in the supply chain" on labor as the world engages in a race to the bottom due to automation, eventually wages may approach zero as technology exponentially improves replacing more and more people.

[Baobab]

35. They already banned a lot of bans and they have to hide that.

Also, read the paper by Nicholas Skala on WTO and health care I posted earlier.

They have to hide that or people will realize ....


Its just an unspeakable situation.

Also, Skala the author (this is him a few weeks before his death- the video is entitled "Public Option vs. Single Payer"

Skala died suddenly on August 9 2009 and his death was never satisfactorily explained.

[Tarc]

9. See also: false dilemma

[TM99]

12. So tell us oh wise one,

what is the third option not mentioned?

[TM99]

20. So are you stalking me now?

You are pretty screwed up puppy aren't you?

But as usual, full of shit with nothing to back it up with. Answer the question asked.

[Tarc]

21. I believe, both times, you are the one that is responding to me

[TM99]

22. But I am not bringing up shit

from one thread in another one. I read that that kind of behavior is typical of stalkers and trolls on the internet. It is definitely a form of bullying.

Be careful, you might hurt yourself from all that back slapping you are doing to yourself.

[Tarc]

23. Not a concern

Double-jointed.

[Jim Lane]

42. I certainly won't speak for Tarc, but I'll tell you my third option.

I am an FDR Democrat (favor single-payer health care, for example, which is what he'd be for today). I believe, however, that the attack on corporate personhood, although very popular on the left, is a huge mistake.

At some point there will likely again be a Republican President with majorities in both houses of Congress. When they pass a bill confiscating, without compensation, all the assets of a corporation they dislike (say, the Sierra Club), what will you do?

Under current law, the victimized corporation's assets run to court and point out that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits the government from depriving any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, and that it therefore protects the Sierra Club. If, however, the Constitution has been amended to provide that the word "person" in its provisions means only natural persons (i.e., human beings), then President Cruz or whoever it is will get away with it.

[TM99]

43. This scenario won't ever occur.

Why?

Because we have had this type of 'fear' long before CU was made law and corporations were given personhood.

Nothing will make that amenable to the left, or well it shouldn't.

[Jim Lane]

44. Sorry, I don't understand your response.

Are you saying that this scenario will never occur because it's not amenable to the left? I wish.

Are you saying that it will never occur because it didn't occur in all the years before Citizens United established corporate personhood? The flaw there is that Citizens United didn't establish corporate personhood. That doctrine long predated Citizens United.

Are you saying that it will never occur because the Republicans will never again control the federal government? Again, I wish. But even if you believe that -- which I consider a pipe dream -- you have to recognize that the Republicans could control state governments. Heck, right now there are several states that have Republican governors and Republican majorities, sometimes large ones, in both houses of the state legislature. DU frequently has posts about the latest outrages they've perpetrated.

Fortunately, the Fourteenth Amendment limits the damage they can do. But the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment, applicable to states, like that in the Fifth Amendment applicable to the federal government, uses that word "person" in stating its protection. If a corporation isn't a person, then those troglodyte homophobes in North Carolina could confiscate all the assets of a corporation that owned a gay bar. The Progressive magazine is published in Wisconsin by Progressive, Inc. What's to stop Scott Walker and his merry band from seizing its offices and turning them into a center for the study of right-wing economics? Right now what's to stop them is the Due Process Clause. I don't know what Plan B is.

[Recursion]

24. Corporations have been legally "persons" since the 1600s

So they were under both FDR and WJC.

[silvershadow]

25. Having run into to you from time to time, all I have to say is: Well, then, they damn sure

won't be when we get done with them.

[Baobab]

31. Not so,corpprate personhood is fairly recent. maybe the 19th century.

and it was accomplished by means of a trick.

[JDPriestly]

32. Corporations are created by the filing of documents. They do not feel pain, cry, or laugh.

They cannot be imprisoned, hospitalized or enslaved. Corporations are not human and should not be viewed as having human rights.

You are right that the law recognizes them as having rights that should be those of humans only under our Constitution, but that needs to be changed.

[Recursion]

38. I said "person", not "human"

When the Dutch invented the joint stock corporation 400 years ago, the entire point was to create an entity that was legally a person and so could be sued.

[JDPriestly]

41. A corporation does not need to be called a person in order to be sued.

Corporations are the creation of laws. You just write a law that says that a corporation is subject to a lawsuit. No need to consider it a person. It is not a person. A person is a human.

Corporations have not human rights. None at all other than what are granted them by law.

Other business forms including partnerships and limited liability companies can also be sued. A partnership is considered a person for some persons. I find that use of the term person to be detrimentally confusing.. We should stop using it in that way.

A corporation is the creation of our laws. We can limit them any way we agree to do. They do not have intrinsic rights by virtue of their birth. Their "birth" is a matter of filing papers. Done it. Been there.

I've also given births to children. The difference is palpable. Filing papers to create a corporation is not nearly the experience that creating and raising children is. And the filing of those papers to start a corporation is not nearly the labor and pain that giving birth to a person is.

It's a matter of semantics and not using the word "person" to refer to a business entity. Corporations do not have personality. They do not suffer as people do.

Traditionally and in the general usage, the word "people," by the way, is and was the plural of person. When I was growing up we did not use the word "persons" to refer to people, not in ordinary speech. And no one would every refer to a group of corporations as people.

This is just a matter of language. But using person to refer to corporations has caused a lot of legal mistakes in our country so I think we should change our laws and not use the term to refer to corporations.

[chervilant]

26. Thank you for this poll.

Makes it so much easier to update my IL (although, I am puzzled by the dearth of Hi11ary supporters...)

[Baobab]

28. Here is the problem, the system is already fixed and has been since the 1990s

to basically make all of the New Deal type programs, as well as any new public monopolies like health care or education, forbidden.

But they still had to work out the so called "disciplines on domestic regulation" and that has taken 20 years.

One of the main stated purposes of the WTO is helping poor countries get rich like us.. by privatizing everything (which facilitates the extractive industries which are the main point) In echange they get jobs.

Or are supposed to get jobs.

So at Doha, Hong Kong, Cancun, Bali and most recently Nairobi. the Least Developed Countries basically engaged in an incredibly lengthy back and forth with the Developed Countries over a substantial development agenda, the DDA. Part of the DDA, the carrot part - the payoff for the developing countries is Services liberalisation which is a way to lower wages and funnel money to corporations both here and in the developing world - money that would otherwise be spent on wages to "overpaid" developed country indigenous workers like those in the US and EU. Since its temporary its not immigration, its an intra corporate transfer- The rules in any country have to be conformed to be "no more burdensome than necessary to ensure the quality of the service" basically allow corporations to treat many countries as their global job pool, and because the wages are lower in some countries than others they are expected to get a lot of work, while the wages equalize out to some equilibrium point between the higher and the lower extremes- at least in theory- as the GATS mandates privatization of big chunks of the public sector, things like hospitals schools, and IT- when government money is involved and the following test of "For the purposes of this Agreement… Also, infrastructure construction. (Also the EU will get access to bid on those jobs through TTIP)

What is the scope of GATS (the 1994 deal that started the process of banning the New Deal type stimulus) "Services" of course..

One definition of services seems to be "everything that you cannot drop on your foot" - However the 'official" definition is basically everything that doesnt get ecluded by very narrow exclusions, plus the positive list and "specific commitments"- OR in the case of TiSA a "negative list" that basically says "all service sectors and modes of supply" are included unless they are explicitly excluded now!

Official 2 part test from GATS of what is privatized and what is exempted by virtue of being public services (supplied as an exercise of governmental authority).:

(b) 'services' includes any service in any sector except services supplied in the exercise of governmental authority;

(c) 'a service supplied in the exercise of governmental authority' means any service which is supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers."

---------end of excerpt------

So, lots of jobs may be put on their big poker table, for now decades , developing countries have haggled with the developed countries- for those "Mode Four" jobs which are supposed to become available to the lowest bidding firms.

But so far the utilization has remained well under 100k jobs a year in the US under GATS Mode Four.

Its worth reading up on this because our leaders are not being honest with us, obviously, and so overnight the situation could change, and if the WTO rules that for example, quotas are not permissible, a question that is before them right now..

it could potentially become huge - and lower wages a lot.

[silvershadow]

30. At least part of this is THE problem alright. nt

[JDPriestly]

36. Great post. Thanks.

[JDPriestly]

29. K&R.

[silvershadow]

40. Bump for day shift. nt