General Discussion

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)

5. We need to separate corporatism and state the same way we separate church and state and

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 09:50 AM

Jun 2014

for the same reason.

We all know the threat posed by government power and we all know the threat posed by corporate power. Yet, there is a mad dash to combine government power with corporate power, whether from the corporatists or from those with too much faith in the government. It doesn't matter which side of the equation we put first the result will be too much power in too few hands.

However, a government that remains separate can fulfill its proper role of oversight. Just like we keep the judiciary and legislature separate from the executive in order to keep the executive from writing and judging the laws it enforces so too should we keep the government from treating profits as its own playground at the expense of keeping corporations on the straight and narrow.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

76 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Populism is a joke -- on us. [View all] Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 OP

The Clintons, they do like their money. Ron Green Jun 2014 #1

We need to separate corporatism and state the same way we separate church and state and Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #5

I like my money tooo soooo? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #2

Meanwhile, they pretend to want to, "make the rich pay their fair share." Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #6

was FDR pretending too? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #7

FDR's sincerity -- or lack thereof -- would not, in any way, translate to the Clintons. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #9

key phrase "your saying" VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #10

No, that's you putting words into my argument that I never considered, let alone made. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #14

you didnt say Hillary who IS eligible to run.....You said "the Clinton's". Bil isnt running is he? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #48

Hillary's eligibility to run is as irrelevant as it is assumed. Everyone knows Hillary is eligible. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #57

I wonder if ... 1StrongBlackMan Jun 2014 #39

When were the Clintons ever populists? hfojvt Jun 2014 #3

Hillary has not agreed on everything Bill did..... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #8

"This is bordering on misogyny" Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #12

insinuating that HRC and Bill Clinton are synonymous IS misogynous VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #16

The only one making that insinuation is you. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #17

no you talked about "the Clintons" VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #20

They're married. They have joint assets. They've both use the same tax dodges. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #22

HE cannot hold the office so his opinion doesnt count... VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #52

Bill Clinton's opinion is irrelevant. The fact he preaches one thing and does another is relevant. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #58

actually that was me hfojvt Jun 2014 #33

Gungeonite .. Anti-Clinton Trajan Jun 2014 #4

ding! ding! ding! Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2014 #26

I've got no problem with the use of legal tax-reduction strategies. dawg Jun 2014 #11

But that's the point. All the thievery we've been witness to has been done "legally." n/t Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #15

But until we change the law, I would never be in favor of asking Democrats to ... dawg Jun 2014 #18

Or maybe they'll just take our votes and keep doing what they're doing. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #19

I don't think we'll see any true populism any time soon. dawg Jun 2014 #23

That's my exact point, dawg Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #25

A better way is possible, but it requires an electorate that is educated, engaged, and not ... dawg Jun 2014 #29

"an electorate that is educated, engaged, and not blinded by petty tribal distinctions" Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #32

Just for the record, I kind of like it. dawg Jun 2014 #37

"Not fair" for the Clintons to pay taxes because some other rich guy isn't? Nice one! nt Romulox Jun 2014 #21

Do you voluntarily compute and pay your income taxes using the pre-Reagan rates? dawg Jun 2014 #24

I pay a decent chunk of salary to causes I believe in--completely voluntarily! Romulox Jun 2014 #31

I'm sure the Clintons give to charity as well. That isn't what I asked. dawg Jun 2014 #34

I DO NOT game the tax code to pay the bare minimum, no. Sorry, not "everybody" does it. nt Romulox Jun 2014 #35

But you still took those Bush tax cuts when they came, right? dawg Jun 2014 #45

The OP is about transferring assets into a "Living trust" to avoid taxes. That's actively gaming Romulox Jun 2014 #51

Unless your estate is valued over $5,250,000, the trust would be pointless for you anyway. dawg Jun 2014 #74

myself, I take advantage of every legal method hfojvt Jun 2014 #49

I like how they found a "Bubba" to put the final nail in the concept the Party of the Working Man. Romulox Jun 2014 #13

why do you think she is he? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #46

Bill and Hillary Clinton (the subjects of the OP, fyi) are a married couple. Hope this helps! Romulox Jun 2014 #47

being married doesnt mean she cant have her own opinions does it....but you and this OP says you VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #50

The first three words of the OP are *literally* "Bill and Hillary Clinton". Romulox Jun 2014 #53

and the entire premise is misogynist tooo. You want that stink on ya? VanillaRhapsody Jun 2014 #56

Criticism of tax avoidance schemes undertaken by Bill and Hillary Clinton is misogynist? Romulox Jun 2014 #59

They're just deflecting the argument. HooptieWagon Jun 2014 #76

If they own the property jointly & each contributed ownership interest to the trust ... dawg Jun 2014 #75

No Clinton fan, but this is ludicrous Proud Public Servant Jun 2014 #27

Correct me if I'm wrong but every appeal to populism involves changing a perceived imbalance in Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #30

I agree -- so attack the law Proud Public Servant Jun 2014 #36

If only the Clintons had a platform from which to advocate for the changes you mention! nt Romulox Jun 2014 #44

but, but ... so much easier to attack personalities. Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2014 #63

And who are we hoping will change the law? Mitt? Hillary? Who? Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #65

all I know is the Joke is on Us and it ain't populsim. Tuesday Afternoon Jun 2014 #71

This is a waste of time criticism... randys1 Jun 2014 #28

Bingo (nt) Proud Public Servant Jun 2014 #38

what is a "meaningful change" hfojvt Jun 2014 #42

No, just the opposite, but imagine what it would be if romney was in charge randys1 Jun 2014 #43

if Romney was in charge hfojvt Jun 2014 #54

The blame is on the system and our inability to change it. randys1 Jun 2014 #55

That's what the OP is about. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #60

The joke is only on those who bought the Clinton BS Exposethefrauds Jun 2014 #40

What does tax law have to do with populism? BainsBane Jun 2014 #41

The fact the hucksters make populist appeals while they themselves game the system. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #61

the law exists BainsBane Jun 2014 #68

Yeah. The law exists. They take great care to ensure their wealth is protected by The Law. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #69

I don't blame people for minimizing their tax liabilities. I care about changing the law. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #62

But who will change the law? The pols taking advantage of the system aren't going to sign away 90% Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #64

Who's asking them to "sign away 90% of their wealth"? NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #66

It's a reference to the 90% rates under Truman that are so often cited fondly here at DU. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #67

That's a marginal tax rate. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #70

Whatever. The point is: whatever fantasy stories people opiate themselves with are just that. Nuclear Unicorn Jun 2014 #72

Of course not. No one is going to vote against their own interest. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #73