Everyone running for every office in the US will now be controlled by corporations.
.
Which changes nothing.

Instead of companies giving their money to 3rd parties to talk for them, they will now talk directly to you about politics so you will know exactly where they stand.

Better, wouldn't you agree?

SUCK MAH BALLZ!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's a bit like letting people who cheat at poker wear the aces on the outside of their sleeves rather than on the inside.

they decided that money is part of free speech or someshit, and now large corporations (which already control the country) can openly/legally buy politicians

As I understand it, it doesn't change the campaign financing laws, it only allows corporations and unions to be able to pay for and provide political advertising for/against political candidates.

It just makes it less difficult for corporations to buy political power, essentially, nothing has changed.

Expect political ads that have puppies and rainbows with John McCain or Palin. And sponsored by Coke.

I really want to go to a different country.

Expect a paradise where all men will be free and equal. Also, bunnies.

Corporations can now buy unlimited advertising supporting their candidate.

Liberals and CNN/MSNBC/politco are running around crying about it and declaring it as one of the worst things ever, because it means companies can now run as many television ads as they want showing how irresponsible and corrupt liberals are.

The big "lobby" or money-base for democrats is lawyers. Corporations tend to be in favor of making money the honest way, so they lean conservative.

You think there would be this much upset in liberal media if corporations were democrat? There would be praise stories.

>>19148
in a capitalist system, you can purchase an airplane ticket

isn't it wonderful?

>>19148
You'd be sorely disappointed.

>>19180
sorry, I thought I said move. I want to move to a different country. But citizenship to all the good ones takes like a decade to complete, if you're lined up for a job there in the first place. Also, I'm poor, and cannot find a job here because of staggering unemployment rate.

>>19174
>Corporations tend to be in favor of making money the honest way, so they lean conservative.
To ensure that your pay never rises and safety regulations move backwards, because that costs them money.
Die in a fucking fire.

>>19198

> I'm poor, and cannot find a job here because I'm lazy and frittered away my schoolyears

fixed

>>19198
Poor people are poor because they want to be. The have no drive to single-handedly will themselves to millionaire status. Pathetic!

>>19209
I'm sorry we all can't come from affluent families who already know how to get ahead in life.

>>19209
lies

>>19198

Thanks to this new supreme court ruling a job may be easier to get in the future.

Step 1. Corporations support conservative who wants to lower taxes
Step 2. Taxes get lowered, companies now have more operating capital to expand business
Step 3. Employment opportunities enhanced for you

Most liberal faggots think that since money is evil and corporations have money, that therefore CEO's just take all the profits and swim in a pool of money like Scrooge McDuck.

Class-envy rhetoric designed to keep you from understanding the obvious economics I just illustrated.

>>19226
>stay in school
>don't have kids out of wedlock
>don't have kids until you are financially able
>don't do drugs or abuse alcohol
>work hard at your job

guard these secrets well lest the affluent people find out I told you!

>>19198
>But citizenship to all the good ones takes like a decade to complete
So you won't do it because it's difficult and complicated?

Be ready for assloads of spam when the election comes, Our pamflets will blot out the sun ! Our poster will cover every wall ! Your mailbox will suffer death by asphyxiation from our spam, you are doomed !

>>19230
>Step 2. Taxes get lowered, companies now have more operating capital for bonuses.

They've got plenty of room to expand their businesses already.

>>19202

Why do you think the new (democratic) health care bill didn't include tort reform?

Lawyers and legal groups hold conventions on how to get the most out of malpractice suits and squeeze doctors for everything they have.

Examples of corporate lobbying, which don't apply to all business, big or small, just like malpractice doesn't, seems to pale in comparison to the greed of lawyers.

>>19241
uh yeah, check on all those. Except for the job part. That requires me to get a job in the first place, which there are none.

>Corporations tend to be in favor of anything that makes them money (such as deregulation, the destruction of unions, breaking safety laws, stealing from their employees's 401k plans, taking out Dead Peasant's Insurance on their employees, artificially inflating their stock prices), so they lean Republican, the party that will gleefully give them all of those things at the expense of the people who voted for them.

fix'd

>>19257
>Obama bank tax
>Health care bill would have forced companies to buy health insurance
>Obama's obvious going after wall street attitude

Are you fucking stupid?

>>19257
>They've got plenty of room to expand their businesses already.
No they don't.

Yeah... the argument kinda works like that.

>>19282
sure they do. But it would cut into those gargantuan year-end bonuses.

>>19272
>That requires me to get a job in the first place, which there are none.
Well shit. It looks like somebody wishes there were rich corporations around offering jobs.

>>19294
because all businesses give their employees huge bonuses, amirite?

>>19295
as opposed to rich ones not offering jobs?

>Could someone breakdown that new Supreme Court decision involving campaign financing?
>What happened/what are the implications?

If you don't have millions to donate to a Republican, your vote now matters even less than it did previously.
The ultra-rich know they're vastly outnumbered, so they've come up with another way to fuck over the middle & lower classes in the ass.

>>19294

Liberal tax-raising rhetoric designed to raise the taxes on the wealthy even further, thus destroying even more jobs.

>>19303
of course not. That would cut into the execs gargantuan year end bonuses.

now that a certain bitch is gone, this will be made unconstitutional piece by piece

and that is starting to happen. fuck mccain feingold in its filthy anus.

>>19310
billions in year end bonuses is rhetoric?

Democrats: "THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO RUN EVERYTHING!"

Republicans: "CORPORATIONS NEED TO BE THE GOVERNMENT THAT RUNS EVERYTHING!"

See why Washington didn't like the idea of political parties?

>>19307

You are so blinded by class-envy and blatant jealously that talking sensibly to you about any of this almost seems like a waste of time. You will just ignore it and keep on citing how Wal-Mart destroys small business and Goldman Sachs pays CEO's millions of dollars.

Quit living in that ivory tower.

>>19304
>rich corporations not offering jobs
so you're saying corporations don't want to expand their businesses bringing in more revenue....?

>>19307
No, you're poor because you're a loser that spends his life hanging out with his leftist stoner buddies and moaning about "The Man" instead of going to school and starting a career.

Get a job, hippie.

>>19315
aha, I see, a word trick

very good! very good!

There was a political TV spot years back about Hilary Clinton, slandering her name. It was paid for and produced by a Conservative backed corporation.
Democrats argued that since it was an 'advertisement' it had to follow certain regulations and should be removed from the air. Republicans countered saying it was a documentary, not an ad, and could therefore say what it wanted. They used Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore as an example- a 'documentary' created by a corporation (The Weinstein Company), slandering W's name.
The courts agreed with the Reps, and the ad/documentary was left alone. That opened up the flood-gates.
Now corporations can create short 'documentaries' about political candidates to air on TV, spending as much money as they want/saying whatever they want.
Dems: 0
Reps: 1

>>19004
For-Profit corporations could not previously run ads for a particular candidate. Now they can. Essentially, the campaign finance reform law is still intact, but that loophole pretty much makes it worthless.

This was a very direct result of Bush's nomination of Justice Alito.

inb4 Roe v Wade is reversal

>>
The big "lobby" or money-base for democrats is lawyers. Corporations tend to be in favor of making money the honest way, so they lean conservative.

The biggest "lobby" is health insurance, which strongly leans Republican for obvious reasons. Lets try your blurb again with factual statements.

>>The big "lobby" is strongly Republican (because they represent corporations). Corporations tend to be in favor of making money any way possible, without regards to social, economic, or environmental standards/responsibilites so they lean conservative.

Fix'd

>>19327

Pretending that they didn't work their asses of in Harvard business school, spending years of their career proving themselves more deserving of it than you, and becoming important enough to command that kind of compensation is rhetoric.

Even if their family did it and they are just some spoiled brat who was groomed for it, they still have more of a right to their wealth than you do.

The nice thing about capitalism is it allows you to create wealth and be industrious, only limiting your wealth by how much you work.

Keep dreaming about how it is all evil executives trying to screw over the middle-class and family-based wealth dynasties aimed at hoarding.

Why would they keep the people poor?

POOR PEOPLE DON'T BUY SHIT AND ARE ONE OF THE REASONS THEY PAY SO MUCH TAXES, THEY DON'T WANT YOU POOR.

>>19334
corporations wants? No, it's just a group of people who want money. I would think it would be goo business sense to expand the corporation, but maybe they fear they'll be voted out by board members and so they want their money now.

ITT: peasants defend the wealthy

>>19371

>>19398
>I would think it would be goo business sense to expand the corporation
what if by expanding the corporation, they lose money in such an investment?

if the corporation looses too much money, it will go bankrupt and now everybody will be out of a job

>>19399
>ITT: peasants defend their right to become wealthy
>ITT: peasants try to defend the government keeping them, and others, poor

>>19371
Yeeeaah...I've researched the whole Ivy League thing, there's no evidence that it's harder than the cheap public schools that result in middle-class jobs. They started off with more money, and are rewarded with larger salaries because they could afford a more expensive college, not "work harder". Wealth begets wealth. The hardest workers make the least.

>>19174
>Corporations tend to be in favor of making money the honest way
>so they lean conservative.

Oh,like sending our jobs to China on the cheap? Goddamn I hate both parties.

>>19371
Fag thinks life is like the board game Monopoly where everyone starts at Go and is given $200,000

>>19399

>ITT: the wealthy pit the peasants against each other to distract them from the fact that politics is an elaborate scam, and you're a wageslave regardless of who "wins".

All you, go read Grapes of Wrath.

>>19371
PROTIP: Getting a graduate business degree doesn't make you smarter than scientists with the same credentials, it just proves that you're more of a capitalistic ass.

>>19443
Too bad the media has convinced us that reading is gay.

>>19409
go bankrupt from creating jobs? What the hell are you on? They go bankrupt from playing stock party.

>>19406

I really hate doing your homework for you, since it is most likely how you came up with your retarded, ass-backwards leftist talking points, but have some reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#Proponents.27_views
http://money.howstuffworks.com/trickle-down-economics.htm