Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I'm not sure that we should be seeking to control corporate spending behavior; philanthropy is a nice goal but it's really not the function of the business world. It's the function of government to tax those resources and distribute them appropriately.
We're so ideologically opposed to government spending that we fall back on companies to fill public service roles. This is contrary to their natural inclination and so creates intense friction between companies that spend money on social responsibility and those that don't.
edited 24th Aug '15 9:54:04 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"
Not exactly on the charge of the corporation.
For example, the government could set up student scholarship programs or infrastructure renewal works, but the private companies could act as investors or sponsors and maybe provide some assistance like trained professionals or materiel, in exchange the government gives a nice % of discount on their taxes.
My rationale would be that government spending would directly or indirectly benefit certain corporations, so it would be only fair for them to contribute and give them some incentives to do so.
Inter arma enim silent legesAre not most domestic charities (ones for the homeless, the abused, the starving and such) in ways a testament to goverment failure by their mere existence? They are addressing problems that rather fall under the remit of the goverment, as such the fact that they are needed proves that the goverment is failing to deal with the things that it should be dealing with.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranIndeed, although it's hard to convince people of that. Everyone but the hardcore objectivists sees private charity as saintly while the government providing the same services is seen as seedy at best, nevermind that the government can do it better due to economies of scale (though usually not cheaper, since they have to actually pay their people).
This has to be the most baffling argument against giving "anchor babies" citizenship I've ever heard.
◊ Fuck Mike Lester.
Mike Lester's very tiny Wikipedia page.
One of the few things that makes us in the US, and indeed the rest of the Americas better than Europe, is our granting of citizenship to everyone born on our shores. We shouldn't change that. If anything we should get more countries to adopt it.
edited 24th Aug '15 11:18:21 AM by JackOLantern1337
I Bring Doom,and a bit of gloom, but mostly gloom.“There is a faction that would actually rather burn down the entire Republican Party in hopes they can rebuild it in their image,” Rick Wilson, a Florida-based Republican admaker, told me. For his outspoken antagonism to Trump, including an op-ed calling Trump voters “Hillary’s new best friends,” Wilson has received a deluge of bile from Trump’s army of Internet trolls; his family has been threatened and his clients have been harassed. He worries that the party is on the brink of falling apart. “There’s got to be either a reconciliation or a division,” he said. “There’s still a greater fraction of people who are limited-government conservatives than people motivated by the personality cult of Donald Trump.”
![]()
...Do they? I haven't heard anything good about Putin from the right. I've seen more than one right-wing video that states that people like Putin are the reason why the American World Police are still absolutely necessary.
edited 24th Aug '15 12:02:13 PM by Protagonist506
Leviticus 19:34Who both believe that Wall Street needs a kick to the teeth.
I agree that he'll be independent. Except who would he be serving? Us, or himself? I don't think Trump has a big history of caring about others. I'd rather have Bill Gates as president. The former richest person on Earth who later became a philanthropist. But he wouldn't have the ego or personality to run and get people excited about him.
And let's not forget Ross Perot.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Like granting scholarships for students, sponsoring humanitarian organizations and investing in impoverished areas.
With government oversight of course to make sure the money is being properly spent.
Inter arma enim silent leges