• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Glenn Greenwald

TownieDeac said:
That’s simply inaccurate.
Click to expand...
Clearly corporate America is pushing for more unfavorable corporate tax policy out of the Biden administration. Since corporations control both parties and write all the legislation this must be the case, right. I think perhaps you have some blind spots here.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Um, have you seen the shit coming out of Republican state houses over the last 6 months? You think it’s be no different with a Democrat super majority?
Click to expand...
Forget the last 6 months. How about policy that's coming out of North Carolina since the republicans have built significant veto proofish majorities. Gutting unemployment cutting the corporate tax rate to a projected rate of 0. Refusing to expand medicaid.Both parties are exactly the same!
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
Clearly corporate America is pushing for more unfavorable corporate tax policy out of the Biden administration. Since corporations control both parties and write all the legislation this must be the case, right. I think perhaps you have some blind spots here.
Click to expand...

one promising difference between the biden and obama administrations is the lack of deloitte/think tank staffers. biden seems to have pulled more consultants directly from the Warren campaign than anywhere else; as i understand it they wrote the tax parts of the american jobs act with consultation from lefty tax reform think tanks. you can certainly point to areas where dems don't rely exclusively on industry to write legislation! but broadly speaking i think the generalization holds.
 
TownieDeac said:
one promising difference between the biden and obama administrations is the lack of deloitte/think tank staffers. biden seems to have pulled more consultants directly from the Warren campaign than anywhere else; as i understand it they wrote the tax parts of the american jobs act with consultation from lefty tax reform think tanks. you can certainly point to areas where dems don't rely exclusively on industry to write legislation! but broadly speaking i think the generalization holds.
Click to expand...

yeah my cousin's husband works for Brookings and had a big hand in writing the Warren campaign's healthcare plan. he's angling hard for a job in the WH. thought he would've been a shoe-in had Hillary won.
 
BarcaDeac said:
yeah my cousin's husband works for Brookings and had a big hand in writing the Warren campaign's healthcare plan. he's angling hard for a job in the WH. thought he would've been a shoe-in had Hillary won.
Click to expand...

shoo-in
 
TownieDeac said:
once again chris
Click to expand...
That's totally inconsistent with your claim that both parties are corporate parties and when shown the evidence you backtrack.

We can all agree that corporate interests attempt to influence legislation no matter what party is in power
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
That's totally inconsistent with your claim that both parties are corporate parties and when shown the evidence you backtrack.

We can all agree that corporate interests attempt to influence legislation no matter what party is in power
Click to expand...

lol i cannot imagine loving a party this much
 
TownieDeac said:
lol i cannot imagine loving a party this much
Click to expand...
About what I expected.

Both parties are clearly corporate parties and the differences are immaterial except if you ignore all of the significant policy differences because of … reasons.

It's no wonder you thought a 80 year old Vermont socialist who never held a steady job until he got into government is the answer to all of our problems.
 
ChrisL68 said:
About what I expected.

Both parties are clearly corporate parties and the differences are immaterial except if you ignore all of the significant policy differences because of … reasons.

It's no wonder you thought a 80 year old Vermont socialist who never held a steady job until he got into government is the answer to all of our problems.
Click to expand...

there are a lot of arguments here that you're making that i am not making. in fact the only one i have made is bolded.

there are of course material differences between both parties and within each party. some of that is down to what policies they support or write/sponsor legislation for, some of it is in how they fundraise, how they build their staffs, their approach to getting their policies implemented, their approach to committee work/hearings, etc. etc.

you bring up bernie 50x as much as anyone else here, chris. he can't hurt you!
 
Ok, glad we see things essentially the same after digging though your rhetoric. I get that your definition of not being a corporate party is that corporate influence in government should be zero and that all policy should be written by leftist think tanks. I don't think that is realistic and certainly isn't the case in even the more economically left countries that we all agree we could move closer towards.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
Ok, glad we see things essentially the same after digging though your rhetoric. I get that your definition of not being a corporate party is that corporate influence in government should be zero and that all policy should be written by leftist think tanks. I don't think that is realistic and certainly isn't the case in even the more economically left countries that we all agree we could move closer towards.
Click to expand...

I don't believe that, and haven't said that. Policymakers shouldn't be expected to be experts in every industry, and they need to advocate for the needs of their constituents forcefully. Industry subject matter experts should be brought to the table when writing legislation. They shouldn't be the only ones included, though. In the Unilever example, I'd expect legislation written around the extent to which manufacturers can emit carbon or leak chemicals into groundwater include experts with toxicological backgrounds, corporate interests, climate experts, etc. Instead, Unilever regularly gets to call the cast of characters who can draft legislation or speak at hearings.

Realistically the reform should be in how campaigns get financed first. And respectfully, just respond to what I'm writing and not what inferences you're making about what I've said.
 
Again you've provided one example with an anecdote and ignored countless other examples where that wasn't the case and that there were other competing stakeholders and concluded that both parties were corporate parties beholden to corporate interests. I did respond to what you wrote.

And this whole line of thought started with you referencing a jacobin article about Susan Rice that was inaccurate in many regards drawing inaccurate conclusions about non existent profits when the whole basis was her divesting in these investments in line with ethical standards.
 
Last edited:
ChrisL68 said:
About what I expected.

Both parties are clearly corporate parties and the differences are immaterial except if you ignore all of the significant policy differences because of … reasons.

It's no wonder you thought a 80 year old Vermont socialist who never held a steady job until he got into government is the answer to all of our problems.
Click to expand...

Shots fired from the Neolib corporatist.
 
townie why do you want to help the republicans relect trump
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top