WAIT!These are laws.  Environmental wackos and Al Gore do not make laws.  Obviously the Congress and the various state legislatures had to pass these laws and the executive had to sign them.  Is this not calledresponding to the will of the people--democracy?  It is our system so long as we wish it to be.  If you want to enthrone advocates of the Austrian school of economics and Adam Smith and constitute a governmentbased strictly on their principles, you are free to try.

If Corporations had any other function than to maximize the return on investments for their stockholders,I would feel more comfortable. They do not. Officers of a corporation have a fiduciary responsibility and if they failto live up to their responsibilities, they can be prosecuted.There is no such law governing their social responsibilities.  Many corporations contribute much to the community, but it is motivated by a desire to be seen as a good corporate system, rather than anaction prompted by altruism.Corporations, unions and many other groups contribute money to the politicians of their choice.  It wouldbe foolish to expect that they would expend the funds to somebody in opposition to their views.  Theproblem is that Corporate America has lots of money, is organized by industry--Tobacco, Drugs etc. andhas many legions of lobbyists pushing their agenda. They are the biggest and the best at this lobbybusiness and have used both attack dog and Fabian tactics in the struggle. This is not a political question as both parties do it with varying degrees of success depending on the issue.  The lobbyists are really good at their job. They win a lot and dress quite well at parties.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what your problem with the situation is.  Of course corporations want profits.  If they did not, they would go out of business.  And of course they want government policies which help them accomplish this.  Where is there wrong in it?

You're stating something without examining it closely.  No one forces politicians to be in favor of corporations.  Corporations themselves do not vote for candidates.  The people vote for candidates.  And we're also missing the flip side of the coin.  Have you considered that the reason why politicians may be in favor of corporations because they realize that corporations are actually good?  Yes, you heard me - they provide jobs for the masses (read: the "people") and also tax revenue that Democrats then get to use to on their "causes" and to build up their bureaucracies. 

If Corporations had any other function than to maximize the return on investments for their stockholders,I would feel more comfortable. They do not. Officers of a corporation have a fiduciary responsibility and if they failto live up to their responsibilities, they can be prosecuted.There is no such law governing their social responsibilities.  Many corporations contribute much to the community, but it is motivated by a desire to be seen as a good corporate system, rather than anaction prompted by altruism.Corporations, unions and many other groups contribute money to the politicians of their choice.  It wouldbe foolish to expect that they would expend the funds to somebody in opposition to their views.  Theproblem is that Corporate America has lots of money, is organized by industry--Tobacco, Drugs etc. andhas many legions of lobbyists pushing their agenda. They are the biggest and the best at this lobbybusiness and have used both attack dog and Fabian tactics in the struggle. This is not a political question as both parties do it with varying degrees of success depending on the issue.  The lobbyists are really good at their job. They win a lot and dress quite well at parties.

I'm trying to figure out exactly what your problem with the situation is.  Of course corporations want profits.  If they did not, they would go out of business.  And of course they want government policies which help them accomplish this.  Where is there wrong in it?

In the back of my head I hear these words which, in light of contemporary events, makes me uneasy--"... government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.I suspect that this is in danger of being altered not to our benefit.  How about you?

You're stating something without examining it closely.  No one forces politicians to be in favor of corporations.  Corporations themselves do not vote for candidates.  The people vote for candidates.  And we're also missing the flip side of the coin.  Have you considered that the reason why politicians may be in favor of corporations because they realize that corporations are actually good?  Yes, you heard me - they provide jobs for the masses (read: the "people") and also tax revenue that Democrats then get to use to on their "causes" and to build up their bureaucracies. 

I am told that a Senator, once elected, spends a lot of his time raising money for the nest election-SIX YEARS in the future.  I know it would be crass to suggest that money can "buy" a politician. but we cansay that certain Congressman and Senators are strongly inclined to vote in such a way so as to keep the funds flowing.  This is not a partisan thing nor is it universal.  It is however, in my opinion, the way things are  usually done. Lobbyists are the cut-outs and the facilitators of this system.  This is equally applicable in the house of the PEOPLE and our HOUSE OF LORDS--the Senate.It is possible that a politician may favor a Corporation because it does good--either for his constituents or the nation as a whole.  However, at this time i cannot think of one that I could offer up without a loud laugh.I am of the view that Corporations pay no taxes--you pay them for them whenever you purchase their good or services--it is all built into the price.  Do you disagree?  It is also unfair to tar the Democrats with building up the bureaucracies.  As I used to be in one I can tell you that Presidents from both sides enlarged them--it just was a matter of which ones were supplemented.  I also recall that Ronnie and Bush I raised taxes to do so.  Am I wrong?

Profits are necessary for corporations to exist and flourish.  In pursuit of this goal do you know of caseswhere the Corporations enlisted  the skills  of Lobbyists to pressure politicians to adopt policies thatenhance profits to the detriment of the nation.  Among many, I pick just one--the mining of coal bytearing off the tops of mountains and letting the water supply suffer.  This is well documented and I wold prefer your comments rather than a discussion of the practice--is that possible?

Is the "pressuring" of lawmakers wrong?  Aren't unions and any other special interests group responsible for the same?  Why should politicians not be able to hold their ground in the face of a bit of pressure?  No one said politics was always easy.As to the environmental aspect - so if it is detrimental to society, then Congress outlaws or restricts such practices which are detrimental to the health of those around them.  But this is really one example of a particular type of corporate activity.  Do you really want to use your broad brush to lay guilt on corporations because of the decisions of some individuals at the head of a corporation who make decisions like this?

It is possible that a politician may favor a Corporation because it does good--either for his constituents or the nation as a whole.  However, at this time i cannot think of one that I could offer up without a loud laugh.

Wow - you cannot even cite Walmart as employing how many thousands, if not tens of thousands of people across the nation.  Not to mention the value that Walmart provides to millions of low-income customers who find good deals at the store.  A truly populist example of how capitalism provides for the masses.  Notice how government could not accomplish what Walmart can.

I am of the view that Corporations pay no taxes--you pay them for them whenever you purchase their good or services--it is all built into the price.  Do you disagree?  It is also unfair to tar the Democrats with building up the bureaucracies.  As I used to be in one I can tell you that Presidents from both sides enlarged them--it just was a matter of which ones were supplemented.  I also recall that Ronnie and Bush I raised taxes to do so.  Am I wrong?

So if Republicans did raise taxes, they were the worse for it.  But you can't say that raising taxes by 1% in one area is the same as raising it 10% in multiple areas.  Not saying the Dems necessarily did this, but Dems do raise taxes as a matter of policy and Republicans raise them as an exception to the rule.  And we remember when they do it.[/quo  I was in complete control of my faculties until you mentioned Walmart!  As I have a weakened heart and take many pills prudence dictates that I withdraw from the list until my blood pressurereturns to normal.  My dirty little secret is that I rail against the GREAT OMNIVOIRE yet, I doshop there from time to time much to my shame.  I see by your comments that further discussion woukd, at this time, be futile and my WALMART admission places me in an awkward position.I shall now have some whiskey and seek solace in the fact that for the moment those of my ilk can close our eyes and hear the weeping and gnashing of teeth at the local Republican headquarters.

Invisible hand?  I was not aware that one could "guide" the invisible hand being that it cannot even be seen.  Am I wrong in thinking that the phrase was used as a metaphor to describe how the actions of the many--acting in their own self interest--benefit the group? Cutting taxes is a method, not the method.  LBJ should have raised them to pay for Vietnam and George II should have done the same for Iraq.  My grandchildren are already in economic thrall to the oriental savers and were I not ready for the journey across the Styx, I should be most upset.  I malquoteWilly Sutton--tax the rich--that's where the money is (fill in your own definition for rich--a good one is anybody who has more than I do).

PERHAPS–We shall see.  A slight increase on the “rich” to help pay for medical care for the poor seems neither unjust nor unwarranted.  It has been an American tradition since 1916 ( in the broad sense).

All a “slight” increase in my company owner's taxes would mean is a “slight” increase in my medical premiums or a “slim” chance of any raise I may get. and that's at best.  Taxing the rich doesn't affect just the rich.