Some Things Just Never Go Away…

We’ve obsoleted many things over the last decade…

Kodachrome, Polaroid, 35mm, 8mm movies, 8 track, cassettes, vinyl records and reel-to-reel tapes have all yielded to digital technology. Telephone booths and land lines have given way to cell phones. Calling (you know, actually “talking to people” on the phone) has been replaced by texting, email and Facebook. Typewriters are gone and digital flat screens are in. Even parking meters and human coin collections are being replaced by electronic credit-card boxes.

Many things are being replaced with smarter technology.

But some scams avert this demise.

1) The health insurance bureaucracy has become obsolete. It’s like giving the pizza delivery guy a chauffeur — an absolute waste of money. This scam consumes 31% total (but 20% unnecessary) of health care dollars without ever laying hands on the patient, when that money should be spent on patient care instead. A Medicare-for-all system would be far more efficient without a loss of quality.

2) Corporations, in their current form. Originally established to protect owners from liability, they are now owned by shareholders who have have invested dollars and have virtually no say on how their companies are run. These owners should be given a binding vote on CEO tenure and pay, and political contributions. The “compensation consultants” should be fired and the shareholders put in their place.

3) Corporate Integrity. Corporations can cheat shareholders out of their dividends through repo101′s. For example, just prior to assessing profits and CEO pay, the executives can sell company debt to another friendly CEO for $1, make the corporation look profitable as hell, give the newly-made star CEO a gigantic pay package, and then buy back the toxic debt for $2. Think “Enron.”

4) Hiding behind 501(c)(3)’s. Originally created to allow charitable organizations like the Red Cross to operate tax free, they are now being misused by political organizations (with government permission) to help their “friendly” politicians get elected.

5) The creation of 501(c)(4)’s. They allow special interests to lobby and bribe politicians, all legally. And though there’s nothing wrong with lobbying, when done with cash in hand it becomes bribery.

6) Private funding of political campaigns. The biggest scam of them all, because without this corruption the politicians would never have allowed the others in the first place. It is the one policy that has crashed our economy and keeps it deep in the hole. All others are secondary.

How does this happen?

Cash dollars put in the right political hands can save your current scam and help create others. We can try to correct all of the above or simply take the bribes out of the system and let the others be corrected over time. Because without bought-and-paid-for politicians they will be.

Jack Lohman is a retired business owner from Colgate, WI and author of Politicians - Owned and Operated by Corporate America. He is publisher of MoneyedPoliticians.net and can be reached at: jelohman@gmail.com. Read other articles by Jack.

30 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 11:45am #

    “1) The health insurance bureaucracy has become obsolete. It’s like giving the pizza delivery guy a chauffeur — an absolute waste of money.”

    That’s a great line. Actually, most capitalism is like that. Too bad the author didn’t keep that attitude throughout the rest of the piece where he talks of reforming the capitalist problem, rather than going beyond it.

  2. jlohman said on October 11th, 2010 at 12:04pm #

    hayate, capitalism (with some regulations to fend off the greedy crooks) would be a great system if we didn’t have special interests distorting it with campaign bribes. The $125 million in campaign bribes from the healthcare industry would not have been required for politicians to “properly” reform the healthcare system. Politicians would have done it correctly — for absolutely FREE — except that they were paid big cash dollars to do exactly the opposite. That is NOT the world I want to leave my kids and grandkids.

    Extrapolate that now to all of the other critical issues we face — climate change, wars, financial, etc — and one can only conclude that it *IS* political corruption, it *WILL* take down America, and if we want to stop it we will have to stop the political bribery.

  3. hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 12:23pm #

    jlohman

    The British have a far less amount of “political bribes” in their political system and a lot more controls, yet theirs is just as bought, fraudulent and corrupt as the american system. The players are selected before we ever hear of them, by the oligarchy. The bribes are just their operating capital, they are already bought and paid for before they ever run. Make new regulations and the oligarchy just have their quislings incorporate different workarounds. Capitalism will always be like this because capitalism is exploitative, corrupt, parasitic and predatory by its very nature.

  4. hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 12:28pm #

    Or to paraphrase Chuang Tzu: reforming capitalism is like trying to make a mirror by polishing a brick.

  5. jlohman said on October 11th, 2010 at 12:39pm #

    So what are you suggesting, hayate, firing squads? They do that in Singapore and it seems to work. I could buy that fix….

    But the first thing I’d do to reform capitalism is get rid of the legal bribes — campaign contributions — with public funding of campaigns (cost: $5 per taxpayer per year). The illegal bribers/bribees go to jail.

    As a retired business owner, if I had an employee (or board of directors, as our congress is) taking cash on the side and giving away corporate assets in return, I’d at least fire him and also try to have him jailed. Does this sound like what’s happening in the political world? We re-elect those b*stards.

    Given that corruption can also occur in socialism, I would take capitalism over it any day.

  6. jlohman said on October 11th, 2010 at 1:34pm #

    Wow! “Pro-capitalism crap???” Are we not open to, you know, discussions? Or does “Dissident Voice” mean “on anything said?”

    I should get used to wackos, on both sides.

  7. Deadbeat said on October 11th, 2010 at 2:42pm #

    As a retired business owner, if I had an employee (or board of directors, as our congress is) taking cash on the side and giving away corporate assets in return, I’d at least fire him and also try to have him jailed.

    And if a business owner took a bribe what would you do?

  8. Deadbeat said on October 11th, 2010 at 2:44pm #

    Scratch that business owners don’t take bribes they offer bribes. Those bribes are called “jobs”

  9. jlohman said on October 11th, 2010 at 3:00pm #

    Bribes are jobs? I see.

  10. hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 3:22pm #

    jlohman said on October 11th, 2010 at 12:39pm

    “But the first thing I’d do to reform capitalism is get rid of the legal bribes ”

    That’s like an analgesic for one’s runny nose and expecting this will cure the cold.

    “Given that corruption can also occur in socialism, I would take capitalism over it any day.”

    I was wondering about that. That explains why you chose to work on the symptoms of the problem, rather than problem of the disease itself.

    In the usa, politicians are not elected with campaign contributions. They are selected by business groups to represent those business groups, and promoted by their subsidiaries in the zionist run media. The campaign funds are operating funds and whether they come from big business or off everyone’s taxes is pretty much irrelevant. It’s the media that [s]elects the politicians and if the politician doesn’t have the corporate ziofascist/fascist seal of approval, the media makes sure they only get bad press and their electability is negligible. That’s why Naders and McKinny’s do not get elected, no matter how much money they can raise, and harmons do, no matter who contributes and how much they contribute.

    In order to make any real change, and not just some cosmetic make over, capitalism has got to go and be replaced by something actually in control of the people.

  11. jlohman said on October 11th, 2010 at 3:36pm #

    hayate,

    If politicians get their campaign funds from the taxpayers they will be beholden to those people. If they get it from corporations they will give them taxpayer subsidies in return. What is it about bribes do you not understand?

  12. Don Hawkins said on October 11th, 2010 at 3:47pm #

    To get back to 350ppm will take an enormous effort Capitalism not in it’s present form the form that is destroying Earth better known as corporations.
    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————–
    Nowhere is the rise of the modern corporation more apparent than in the United States, which possessed only seven chartered business corporations at the time of Independence. The first significant American industrial corporation, the Boston Manufacturing Company, was not established until 1813.

    Because the most powerful American corporations are of recent origin, it is easy to think of the corporation as a modern phenomenon, but actually they are very ancient — so ancient that their actual point of origin is lost in legend of Numa Pompilius and beyond. The oldest surviving business corporation in the world is probably Sweden’s Stora Kopperberg, which was founded in 1288 and is now known as StoraEnso. The oldest surviving corporation of any sort is the Benedictine Order of the Catholic Church, which was founded around 529 A.D.

    The main human attribute that corporations lack is a soul, as Roger Manwood, chief baron of the Exchequer, noted as early as 1592. Since the corporations themselves, and not their souls, were immortal, they were not held accountable to the moral standards that applied to individual people. “Corporations cannot commit treason, nor be outlawed,” wrote the great English legalist Edward Coke, “for they have no soul.” Or as English lawyer Howel Walsh put it, “a corporation cannot blush.” Thus the corporations’ moral inadequacy amounted to a significant legal advantage, one of many they have accrued.

    In fact, special dispensations, exemptions, and privileges of every kind imaginable are the life’s blood of the corporation. Corporate members enjoyed various privileges during Roman times, such as curial immunity, and organizational privileges are evident as early as 628 A.D. in the ecclesiastic orders of the Catholic Church, the first great corporations of the post-Roman era. Modern English and French law traces the secular corporation to the concept of “franchise,” which is the French Norman word for privilege.

    Over the centuries, these privileges have been nurtured, entrenched, and expanded. You can get some idea of this corporate favoritism when you realize that no American corporation was indicted — let alone convicted — for murder until 1978. Criminal law is really a sidelight, though. The place where corporations enjoy their biggest advantage is tax law. During the height of the Reagan era, 50 of the largest business corporations in America avoided paying any federal income tax. In many ways, modern corporations are analogous to the aristocracy of the ancien regime. Bruce Brown

    Read on;

    http://www.astonisher.com/archives/corporation/corporation_intro.html

  13. jlohman said on October 11th, 2010 at 3:48pm #

    Ah, you are absolutely correct. I just didn’t get it after you “explained” it to me. It must be really hell living in a world that doesn’t bow to your every word. What say?

  14. bozh said on October 11th, 2010 at 4:16pm #

    Symptoms act as causes as well as THE FIRST CAUSE. One does exist a per necessary or absolutely certain truth.
    The idea of necessary truth, i am told, had been created by aristotle; thus, it is not mine.
    I learned of it from dictionary and by accident. Perhaps others have said that as well, but perhaps in diff words.
    It is to me a very useful observation and because it is an astounding discovery all media–including socalled radical ones– avoid it like plague.

    All posts and media i have read thus far, never posit the first cause; they solely offer us a never-ending stream of jeremiahs and symptoms.
    And to make it even worse, nearly all posters and all writers also avoid posting or postulating solutions.
    So the ruling class allows that to go on since it has nothing to fear but some barbs and the usual plaints.
    And not mention a steady stream of lies, halflies and, of course, lots of labels.tnx

  15. hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 4:40pm #

    jlohman said on October 11th, 2010 at 3:36pm #

    “If politicians get their campaign funds from the taxpayers they will be beholden to those people. If they get it from corporations they will give them taxpayer subsidies in return. What is it about bribes do you not understand?”

    They’ll tell the people what they think the people want to hear. Same as now. Politicians lie. It’s their one consistent trait. 😀 And then do what the ziofascist/fascist corporate massa tells them to do. Same as they do now. That’s how it works in the UK. It’s how it would work in the usa with campaign reform. It’s not campaign funds that elect politicians, it’s how the zionist run corporate media covers them. It’s not campaign funds that select which person will run and what sort of media coverage they will get, it’s loyalty to the corporate oligarchy that determines this.

    What is it about quislings do you not understand?

  16. jlohman said on October 11th, 2010 at 4:51pm #

    They “do what the … corporate massa tells them to do” for one and ONLY one reason; the corporations fund their campaigns. With public funding of campaigns politicians would give the corporations the finger. What is it that you don’t understand about cash? 90% of politicians that win SPEND MORE MONEY than their challengers.

  17. hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 4:56pm #

    Simple question.

    Candidate 1 is pro-people, anti-corporate.

    Candidate 2 is pro-corporate and doesn’t give a damn about the people.

    Which of the two will the corporate media promote?

    Right.

    To change that, the system must be changed. It’s ludicrous to expect that an oligarchy will allow their serfs to deprive them of their power. Their control of politics is part of their power. They will never commit suicide like that. At best, what you’ll get is some very cosmetic changes and oligarch connections to the politicians will be more obscured – like in the UK. That wont change anything. In fact, it might just end up giving these very corporate ziofascists/fascists a substantial break in their operating expenses since they will no longer need to finance their quisling’s political campaigns since the taxpayer will be doing it for them. In other words, it’s just more of the “socialise the risks and expenses, and privatise the benefits” mantra the capitalists have been pushing since raygun’s regime. Meanwhile, those same political quislings will give those rich bitches a new tax break scheme to replace the break they got from their political contributions.

  18. hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 5:00pm #

    jlohman said on October 11th, 2010 at 4:51pm

    You don’t really understand what a quisling is, do you. It’s not just money that bonds them to massa, it’s the fact they and massa think the same way.

  19. jlohman said on October 11th, 2010 at 5:01pm #

    And besides, if it was only corporate loyalty they wouldn’t have to spend money; but it isn’t and they do. Sorry.

  20. hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 5:14pm #

    jlohman said on October 11th, 2010 at 5:01pm #

    “And besides, if it was only corporate loyalty they wouldn’t have to spend money; but it isn’t and they do. Sorry.”

    Most of the media advertisement politicians get is free. The “news” coverage that frames them in a positive manner is completely free of charge, compliments of the media outlet being a subsidiary of massa. Likewise, the negative coverage, or lack of any coverage at all, in the media is what absolutely kills a candidacy. This is irregardless of campaign ads, whose impact the media can also minimize through scheduling and even not accepting the ads. The money spent in a political campaign is basically for show. The media elects the buggers.

  21. hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 5:18pm #

    jlohman

    Now how would you go about reforming the corporate media so their control of elections is removed? Or do you even want to do that, considering how that would harm the corporate oligarchy and benefit the people?

  22. Unga_Khan said on October 11th, 2010 at 5:22pm #

    hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 5:14pm
    “Most of the media advertisement politicians get is free. The “news” coverage that frames them in a positive manner is completely free of charge, compliments of the media outlet being a subsidiary of massa.”

    And how do you think they get that news coverage? By spending campaign money like crazy to get their name and face out there so that they can ingratiate themselves with the media. Indeed, if someone doesn’t spend a ridiculous amount of money on a campaign the media is sure to cast them in a bad light- look at Alvin Greene in SC after his primary win. The media influence elections to be sure, but to say campaign money (particularly corporate and lobbying donations) plays a minimal role is absurd.

  23. hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 6:08pm #

    Actually, all one needs to do is look at what happened to bush sr in the lead up to the ’92 prez [s]election. After the gulf massacre, he was a popular guy. The media thought he could do no wrong and the corporate oligarchy was delighted with their boy. But then something went terribly wrong for bush. The media started doing all sorts of stories about his role in weakening the economy. Other things, as well, were getting covered that put him in a bad light. What went wrong for the boy to get the oligarchy down on him?

    He opposed a zionist policy, that’s what went wrong. Nothing else. Right after he embarrassed ziofascism, inc., the media switched from giving him glowing praise to harsh criticism. In the end, it was this negative coverage in the media that lost the election for him. Did clinton win because he outspent bush? No. Both had substantial war chests and spent lavishly. It was entirely the negative coverage in the media that set the stage and the introduction of that floppy-eared texan (I never can remember his name 😀 ) that delivered the coup de grace that made sure there would be no unexpected election eve rebound for the bushbaby. If bush had 2, 3 times as much as clinton to spend,it would have made no difference. Once he went against ziofascism, inc., he was toast.

    That’s just one well known example of how the corporate media selects who gets to be the winner in american political races. They do this in all of them. From local to national. They are not always successful, once in a while someone gets elected in spite of corporate media opposition. It’s very rare, though, and the politician is usually so isolated, it is extremely difficult for them to make any headway against the system, and for the most part, they don’t get far with making any positive changes because the whole system aligns itself against them.

    The corporate media is part of the ziofascist/fascist corporate structure. They are not outside of it just taking “bribes” to give a line of propaganda to this and that. Even chomsky is clear on that. When a politician angers that ziofascist/fascist corporate oligarchy, that politician also angers the corporate media. And they kill that politician’s career. No matter how much Nader spends, he will never get the corporate media behind him. Unless, of course, he sells out. Then he might get a bit of positive “news” coverage and fox might play his campaign ads and by some miracle of miracles, enough americans might become aware he exists and is not just some “psychotic commie who took their ramblers away from them” 40 years ago. But unless Nader toes the ziofascist/fascist corporate line, the chances of the corporate media giving the positive coverage he needs to get elected are nil, and so are his elections chances – even if he were to spend $1 billion.

    And now they got “diebold”, as well, in case a particular upset might be a little too upsetting.

    “Given that corruption can also occur in socialism, I would take capitalism over it any day.”

    That pretty much says all one needs to know about this jack lohman. Well, that and the sort of support his “talking points” are getting from the resident hasbarat crew.

    BTW, I like how the promoters of zionism and capitalism always run interference for each other.

  24. hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 6:26pm #

    Hey, what happened to the excellent comment from T42 that I read here earlier?

  25. hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 6:30pm #

    And also, I don’t care for being characterised as a wacko because I disagree with some writer’s pov. IE:

    jlohman said on October 11th, 2010 at 1:34pm #

    “Wow! “Pro-capitalism crap???” Are we not open to, you know, discussions? Or does “Dissident Voice” mean “on anything said?”

    I should get used to wackos, on both sides.”

    That’s pretty rude and totally uncalled for.

  26. Unga_Khan said on October 11th, 2010 at 6:39pm #

    Would Bush have gotten to be president in the first place without his lavish Republican- and corporate-financed war chest? Would Clinton have been the Democratic candidate if he couldn’t solicit the kind of donations necessary to mount a sustained nationwide presidential campaign? In trying to boil absolutely everything down to a Zionist conspiracy you’re ignoring some very obvious facts.

    hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 6:30pm
    “That’s pretty rude and totally uncalled for.”

    Frankly hayate, you’re one to talk. Even the casual reader of DV must be well acquainted with your instabranding anyone as a quisling, ziofascist, or in my case “Morton Downey Jr.” just yesterday (btw genius, he broadcast from Sacramento, not LA) because they dare to question your theories.

  27. hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 6:54pm #

    Unga_Khan said on October 11th, 2010 at 6:39pm

    That comment is completely irrelevant to the topic, like your trolls after the article on the noble peace prize. Both bush and clinton were long time insiders in ’92. They were part of the establishment. Still are. Neither would have ever been selected to play the role they did had it been otherwise. These people are selected to run first, then the corporate ziofascists/fascists give them the money needed to run a campaign.

    And I’ll repeat, with the capitalist system in place in the usa, making the campaign funds taxpayer supported will only serve the purpose of taking those costs from the rich and putting them on the taxpayer. It wont change who selects who runs and it wont change the criteria in how the corporate media determines the election results.

    But it will change one thing. It will add an additional layer of subterfuge to the already shady dealings between corporate ziofascists/fascists and the quislings they appoint to govern the usa.

  28. Deadbeat said on October 11th, 2010 at 7:19pm #

    Unga_Khan writes …

    The millions upon millions spent by the major parties on campaigns are the major barrier to independent candidates and third parties gaining a foothold in this country

    You clearly wasn’t around in 2004 where is was obvious what was going on. It much more than money. Money is the aspect of Capitalism that controls elections. However Zionism goes beyond money and it is what sabotaged the 2004 third-party Nader run as well as the anti-war movement.

  29. Unga_Khan said on October 11th, 2010 at 7:31pm #

    Actually, since I was living in CA at the time, I had a friend who worked during the summer collecting signatures to put Nader on the state’s ballot. She quit after I think two weeks or so because of poor pay and the amount of abuse and threats she was getting from people she solicited from signatures. Apparently she wasn’t alone. Could it be that people of all stripes, for various reasons, violently hated Nader that year and the campaign couldn’t afford to hire enough people to put up with the working conditions to get them on every state’s ballot? That’s sure the impression I got.

  30. hayate said on October 11th, 2010 at 8:08pm #

    Deadbeat

    “However Zionism goes beyond money and it is what sabotaged the 2004 third-party Nader run as well as the anti-war movement.”

    Definitely. Nader could have had a $1 billion to spend and he still would have been lucky to see a few % of the vote. Both the right (zio and paleo) and the progressives under zionist control slandered him in unison. The media ignored him, or gave him negative publicity, and they would have either marginalised his political ads to late night or refused to carry them, had he had that $1 billion to give them. It’s a double wammy with corporate control and with zionist control on top of that. Between the two, any real leftist has an ice cube’s change in a blast furnace in american politics in overcoming all their obstacles.