Democratic Debate

[TheDanold]

HaHa, isn't that the truth. You should see the number of auditors we have to staff in our office now to comply with S-0. The number of unproductive hours and the cost is off the charts negative. Most people don't understand I believe because they don't see it. For those that do S-O is scary.

What really enrages me is that for regulations like this you have to hire far more accountants, lawyers and others which greatly increases the size of the corporation. Essentially big corporations, get bigger by the left's own actions and then the same lefties have the nerve to go around say corporations are too big and powerful and "something" must be done about it.

Every regulation they pass on business molds the scale of that business sector to favor a larger size entity (ie: you have to higher more accountants for more accounting regulations and more lawyers for more legal regulations, etc...). The left fails to ever understand that they have helped create that which they so despise.

 

[Onceler]

I like corporations. I don't like the influence of corporate money in politics, and I don't think corporations can be trusted, if that's the right word, to always act in a way that benefits the environment, their employees or America. Profit is their only motive; there's nothing wrong with that, but the considerations I mentioned will always take a backseat in favor of profit, which is why the gov't has to step in on certain issues.

Oh, and it was the White House that pushed for Sarbanes Oxley, and a GOP Congress that passed it. Not "the left".

 

[TheDanold]

I like corporations. I don't like the influence of corporate money in politics, and I don't think corporations can be trusted, if that's the right word, to always act in a way that benefits the environment, their employees or America. Profit is their only motive; there's nothing wrong with that, but the considerations I mentioned will always take a backseat in favor of profit, which is why the gov't has to step in on certain issues.

Do you really think Exxon's sales went up after the Valdex crashed? Employees need to be treated as well as possible by the market or they will find jobs elsewhere. I know it's whimsical to pretend that employees are this helpless group of pawns who need protection from their dire evil employer, but the reality is we have all dealt with some shit in the workplace and it's not exactly hard to find another (better) job if the shit gets to be too much.

YES Corporations have a sole drive to profit, but they can only get that profit by giving their customers (including PR with the environment) and employees something valuable in return where they will stay on as employees and customers - this is the key link you're missing.

Oh, and it was the White House that pushed for Sarbanes Oxley, and a GOP Congress that passed it. Not "the left".

No, this is like saying it was Bill Clinton who pushed and passed welfare reform.
The reality is that the Repubs never had a Conservative majority and lacked the balls to stand up to the left who were the ones loudly crying out for "corporate accountability" and pushing for something like Sarbanes-Oxley. They never pushed for it and only passed it reluctantly under public opinion which leaned lefter at the time.

Just like when Bill Clinton never pushed for welfare reform but did pass it (after vetoing it TWICE) and only passed it under public opinion which leant more to despising welfare.

I've been debating politics for a long time and it was (and is) ALWAYS the lefties on forums in favor of more corporate regulation and the rightwingers opposed - would you really deny that? So please don't pretend that it was the opposite in congress - no one who is honest would buy that.

 

[cawacko]

I like corporations. I don't like the influence of corporate money in politics, and I don't think corporations can be trusted, if that's the right word, to always act in a way that benefits the environment, their employees or America. Profit is their only motive; there's nothing wrong with that, but the considerations I mentioned will always take a backseat in favor of profit, which is why the gov't has to step in on certain issues.

Oh, and it was the White House that pushed for Sarbanes Oxley, and a GOP Congress that passed it. Not "the left".[/QUOTE

Most companies are in competitive environments. Competition with their products and competition for people. If a company treats its employees poorly many are likely to leave for a competitor and that company will suffer as a result. For many companies their intellectual capital walks out the door each night, ie. their employees. They are definitely incentivized to treat them well and make sure they are happy.

I don't think anyone (or an extreme few) would call for no government involvement in the economy and business. There need to be rules and someone to arbitrate when disputes arise etc. Acts like Sarbanes Oxley go well beyond that and add burdemsome regulations and costs to businesses that have an overall negative effect.

S-O was an overreaction to corporate scandals at the time. Another example of politicians passing harmful legislation to look like they are trying to protect the public.

 

[Onceler]

Christ - the Exxon Valdez is one of the lamest examples you've ever come up with. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about all of the corners that they cut on current clean air, water & other enviro regulations. If those regulations weren't in place, perhaps some corporations would still police themselves, but the vast majority would likely get away with whatever they could get away with, and the planet would suffer as a result.

The Valdez - what an idiot.

And Clinton had a GOP CONGRESS pushing for welfare reform. It was all part of his triangulation thing. The White House claims credit for Sarbanes, and they had a GOP Congress, who voted OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of the legislation. You've been smoked on this point before (and badly), and yet you keep trying to convince anyone without a brain that it was "the left"....

 

[TheDanold]

Christ - the Exxon Valdez is one of the lamest examples you've ever come up with. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about all of the corners that they cut on current clean air, water & other enviro regulations. If those regulations weren't in place, perhaps some corporations would still police themselves, but the vast majority would likely get away with whatever they could get away with, and the planet would suffer as a result.
The Valdez - what an idiot.

No the Valdez is the perfect example, it shows that when there is SEVERE environmental damage, that public opinion is enough to lower sales and MAKE them care.
Minor environmental damage will also affect sales via more minor amounts of boycotting, loss of sales, etc...
The market regulates to the degree of the damage, very nicely so.

And Clinton had a GOP CONGRESS pushing for welfare reform. It was all part of his triangulation thing. The White House claims credit for Sarbanes, and they had a GOP Congress, who voted OVERWHELMINGLY in favor of the legislation. You've been smoked on this point before (and badly), and yet you keep trying to convince anyone without a brain that it was "the left"....

Who screamed out and pushed for more regulations on corporations? The right or the left? Don't even try this, it's just plain silly.
I already admitted the Repubs in Congress lacked balls and I wouldn't be surprised if the white house claimed credit for it just like Clinton took credit for welfare reform.
It's disingenuous to pretend that either of them were REALLY in favor of it.

Lastly if it wasn't for the Republicans being involved in writing the legislation it would have been even more severe, they watered it down as many Dems have accused them of doing, so please stop this nonsense. The left IS and DOES NOW call for more corporate regulations, look at Cypress's comments earlier and echoed by others here and applauded when Edwards said it.

Friday the 13th was 2 weeks ago, so we can play Backwards day another time, mkay sweetheart?

 

[Onceler]

"No the Valdez is the perfect example, it shows that when there is SEVERE environmental damage, that public opinion is enough to lower sales and MAKE them care.
Minor environmental damage will also affect sales via more minor amounts of boycotting, loss of sales, etc...
The market regulates to the degree of the damage, very nicely so."


Are you for real? The public only cared because they were AWARE of it. It was a big incident, and got a lot of press coverage. Some of the corners that get cut, and the regulations that get eased, are not "headline makers," or even covered in the news, but their cumulative damage is much, much worse over the long run.

Man, you are so dense, it seems impossible that someone can think like you do....

 

[Onceler]

As for Sarbanes, it is an irrefutable fact that the REPUBLICANS WERE IN CHARGE. They pushed for it, and were more than happy to take credit for it.

Don't you understand politics? Even if they didn't believe in it, they knew they had to do something to win voters over & keep themselves in power after Enron. For the record, I'm sure the Dems would have done the same if they were in power. But they weren't; your attempts to try to pretend that the GOP - in charge of both the executive & legislative branches - were just wimps who gave into "the left" for no other reason than they're just weak, is one of the highlights of your idiocy, which is really saying something....

 

[Cancel7]

As for Sarbanes, it is an irrefutable fact that the REPUBLICANS WERE IN CHARGE. They pushed for it, and were more than happy to take credit for it.

Don't you understand politics? Even if they didn't believe in it, they knew they had to do something to win voters over & keep themselves in power after Enron. For the record, I'm sure the Dems would have done the same if they were in power. But they weren't; your attempts to try to pretend that the GOP - in charge of both the executive & legislative branches - were just wimps who gave into "the left" for no other reason than they're just weak, is one of the highlights of your idiocy, which is really saying something....

Yeah, no, they didn't give in to the left. Their chickens had come home to roost and they were scared shitless of the VOTERS, not of the left. I only wish the left ever had anybody cowering in fear of them. But it's not the case. The VOTERS were upset. You know Dano, the people?

 

[TheDanold]

Yeah, no, they didn't give in to the left. Their chickens had come home to roost and they were scared shitless of the VOTERS, not of the left. I only wish the left ever had anybody cowering in fear of them. But it's not the case. The VOTERS were upset. You know Dano, the people?

Voters are fickle and outrage can dissipate quickly. After Enron there wasn't really a lot to get outraged about for corporations, so the Repubs should have known better and bit the bullet and stand up for what was right, knowing that in time things would calm down.
But hell yes I blame the left, they only poured fuel on the fire for that and stirred up more outrage and you both know that. Lefties squealed for more in political forums at the time, do you deny that?

I'm not a person who goes after the enablers or the weak-willed, I go after the root of the problem. It was from the left that the outrage was overhyped and from the left that the main push and calls for more corporate regulations came.
Ergo they are chiefly responsible.

 

[Onceler]

Voters are fickle and outrage can dissipate quickly. After Enron there wasn't really a lot to get outraged about for corporations, so the Repubs should have known better and bit the bullet and stand up for what was right, knowing that in time things would calm down.
But hell yes I blame the left, they only poured fuel on the fire for that and stirred up more outrage and you both know that. Lefties squealed for more in political forums at the time, do you deny that?

I'm not a person who goes after the enablers or the weak-willed, I go after the root of the problem. It was from the left that the outrage was overhyped and from the left that the main push and calls for more corporate regulations came.
Ergo they are chiefly responsible.

No, you blame the left, because that's what you do. You blame the left for virtually everything.

This is a pathetic rationale you've written. The fact is, if anyone in either the GOP field or the Dem field tried to make a case during one of the debates that "the left" is to blame for Sarbanes, which passed when the GOP controlled everything, with massive support from the GOP & with the GOP taking most of the credit, they would be laughed off the stage....

 

[Cancel7]

Voters are fickle and outrage can dissipate quickly. After Enron there wasn't really a lot to get outraged about for corporations, so the Repubs should have known better and bit the bullet and stand up for what was right, knowing that in time things would calm down.
But hell yes I blame the left, they only poured fuel on the fire for that and stirred up more outrage and you both know that. Lefties squealed for more in political forums at the time, do you deny that?

I'm not a person who goes after the enablers or the weak-willed, I go after the root of the problem. It was from the left that the outrage was overhyped and from the left that the main push and calls for more corporate regulations came.
Ergo they are chiefly responsible.

Give me a break Dano! Since before the invasion of Iraq and up until today, "the left" has been yelling message boards about that, and what happened? Nobody gives a crap about what the left is yelling about on message boards, and I say that as part of the left who has been yellling. I only wish your scenerio was even remotely possible, but it's not.

The republicans had their hands in the cookie jar, and there was plenty of fear inside the administration about how badly Bush's relationship with "kenny boy" was going to hurt. Witness how bush tried to claim he barely knew the guy, and how bush championed and bragged about the reforms.

 

[TheDanold]

"No the Valdez is the perfect example, it shows that when there is SEVERE environmental damage, that public opinion is enough to lower sales and MAKE them care.
Minor environmental damage will also affect sales via more minor amounts of boycotting, loss of sales, etc...
The market regulates to the degree of the damage, very nicely so."


Are you for real? The public only cared because they were AWARE of it. It was a big incident, and got a lot of press coverage. Some of the corners that get cut, and the regulations that get eased, are not "headline makers," or even covered in the news, but their cumulative damage is much, much worse over the long run.

Man, you are so dense, it seems impossible that someone can think like you do....

Wrong, many companies even voluntarily offer green products and green changes (ie: less packaging, no chemicals, etc...) to consumer demand, often on things that involve incredibly minimal environmental damage. The changes are more subtle because the environmental damage is very weak.

The public was MORE aware of the Valdez because it was MORE damage. The public is still aware of other environmental damage, but it isn't severe enough for them to warrant changing their mind on purchasing their products so why would you need government to step in and decide on something more severe when the market (individual consumers) have already made their choice?

I understand YOU believe that the environment has gone to hell like most sheeplike lefties, but most of us who are calm and observe do not share your beliefs and there is no reason government should step in and FORCE your beliefs on regulation for the rest of us.

 

[TheDanold]

Give me a break Dano! Since before the invasion of Iraq and up until today, "the left" has been yelling message boards about that, and what happened? Nobody gives a crap about what the left is yelling about on message boards, and I say that as part of the left who has been yellling. I only wish your scenerio was even remotely possible, but it's not.

The republicans had their hands in the cookie jar, and there was plenty of fear inside the administration about how badly Bush's relationship with "kenny boy" was going to hurt. Witness how bush tried to claim he barely knew the guy, and how bush championed and bragged about the reforms.

And this was worth over 1.4 trillion in lost productivity was it? I support repealing Sarbanes-Oxley and call for less regulation on business, do you?

Looking at the current debates would you say Dems or Repubs are calling for YET more regulations on business? Reread Edwards quote if you need help with that one...

I'm done with this stupid game for today, maybe tomorrow we can pretend that Dems wanted action on Iraq more, because hey they were in power in the senate in 2002 - the Dem majority passed the resolution. God do you see how stupid this is now?

 

[Onceler]

"I understand YOU believe that the environment has gone to hell like most sheeplike lefties, but most of us who are calm and observe do not share your beliefs and there is no reason government should step in and FORCE your beliefs on regulation for the rest of us."

Google "Dead Zone, Gulf of Mexico." That's just ONE area.

You are the worst spreader of disinformation & bogus assumptions; facts don't matter to you at all. You may be calm, but you don't "observe" anything, unless is supports your point of view.

You're pathetic.

 

[Onceler]

"I'm done with this stupid game for today, maybe tomorrow we can pretend that Dems wanted action on Iraq more, because hey they were in power in the senate in 2002 - the Dem majority passed the resolution. God do you see how stupid this is now?"

A majority of Dems in Congress voted against it.

Did a majority of Republicans vote against Sarbanes? Do you want to see the tallies again, DeMano?

Go home.