Wisconsin in Context

[Zero Sum 305]

He's regurgitating the Libertarian fallacy that we are taxed against our will.

As if corporations et al operated separate and beyond of governments and the societies they profit from. They may own the public sector with the money they have, and that is something that should be looked at too.

Maybe that is one thing I agree with Libertarians on... tax money should definitely not go to give tax breaks to companies that profit quite well ' on their own.'

[Sergi9 110]

Why not? He's doing exactly what he was elected to do. Which is a lot more than can be said for many politicians.

I agree with need a valued education system, but we have gone far beyond that over the years. It's not easy to get fired when you're a union member and it's not right that everyone be paid based on how long they've had their job vs. job performance. --- I also don't think it's fair to judge on performance alone, BUT if year after year after year every class this teacher has is not producing, then the problem isn't just random occurances of poor students.

Its not random by a long shot, children are getting stupider by the day, its genetic. In a recent poll 52% of GOP voters believed Obama was not born in the US. The children of these voters are the problem no doubt. The apple does not fall far from the tree.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Wisconsin in context?

Context of what? That Paul Krugman is a far left nut?

[elmcitymaven 9,711]

When you create laws based on the choices people make, there's always a slippery slope. Legal experts on both side of the issue can win an argument in the right court of law. It's just a matter of who brings which cards to the table.

The problem here is the inherent laws themselves.

Disputes amongst investors/corporations should always be more civil than criminal.

There are always bad egg corporations out there, but the majority have their own interests to look out for and 9/10 those interests include keeping investors happy. If the investors aren't happy, then they are going to take their money elsewhere to someone who can satiate their financial interests.

Oh man. I don't feel up to explaining the history and evolution of fiduciary duty, the interpretation of such in modern day courts (particularly the Delaware Courts of Chancery) or in particular the fascinating (to me) Freshfields decision of some years back. Further, there ARE situations in which management has perpetrated fraud upon the company's investors -- should they not have recourse to the criminal courts? Utter BS.

And as I have said before, your "Wall Street Walk" mantra no longer flies in this day and age. It's thoroughly outmoded for large institutional investors.

*giggle*

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Oh man. I don't feel up to explaining the history and evolution of fiduciary duty, the interpretation of such in modern day courts (particularly the Delaware Courts of Chancery) or in particular the fascinating (to me) Freshfields decision of some years back. Further, there ARE situations in which management has perpetrated fraud upon the company's investors -- should they not have recourse to the criminal courts? Utter BS.

And as I have said before, your "Wall Street Walk" mantra no longer flies in this day and age. It's thoroughly outmoded for large institutional investors.

*giggle*

The problem with today's society is we rely too much on the government to handle problems of our own actions. This is included in expecting government to intervene in our financial lives/decisions.

It's a slippery slope. You can't ask for criminal court involvement on a corporate level and not expect it to fall down to a personal contract level. Everything eventually trickles down.

It's why we have civil courts to take care of personal matters and why there are class-action lawsuits for corporations who get out of control.

[Zero Sum 305]

Having boatloads of money doesn't buy much justice either. Yeah, riiiiight.