Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

The K Street Project

Politics-American K-Street Project Tom DeLay Grover Norquist

  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#61 waterpanther

waterpanther
  • Islander
  • 1,944 posts

Posted 06 October 2005 - 08:31 PM

Property taxes--an issue the sh*t-for-brains Texas Lege never could get around to this last term--are going up because the real estate bubble just keeps on expanding.  I've been looking at housing prices in San Antonio, some of which have nearly doubled in a couple years.  One day soon, that bubble's gonna go splat on our collective face.  Until then, no relief on property taxes, and maybe not then.

Quote

Heating gas is going to go up between 60% and 90%.

Say thank you to Corporate Oil--they're exploiting the hell out of Katrina and Rita.
Posted Image

#62 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 07 October 2005 - 09:44 AM

Quote

Say thank you to Corporate Oil--they're exploiting the hell out of Katrina and Rita.


Yep and HR481 that the GOP is pushing through right now will be another sloppy kiss for the "Impoverished" oil industry. Relaxing pollution controls for oil refineries so those poor oil companies won't have to pay to install them...Afterall they've only been seeing record profits and they simply can't afford to pay for the required pollution reducing devices. Nevermind that Bush invited them earlier in the year to build refineries on closed military bases waiving all the permitting processes normally entailed...Did ONE of the oil companies jump on that opportunity? NO. It's also my understanding (and a point I will look up to see if it's true) that the oil industry actually closed 10 refineries here in recent years. The allegation being that this one done to deliberately jack up the prices of oil.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#63 Anakam

Anakam

    Way Star

  • Islander
  • 13,862 posts

Posted 07 October 2005 - 10:26 AM

President Bush also apparently observed recently that no new refineries have been built since the 1970's.  Is that actually accurate, and if it is, why is it such a problem?  They're working, correct?  What's the expected life of a refinery (just like nuclear plants have a certain number of expected years of being able to function)?
Sailing free, boundless glimmer, golden whispers, fiery poise, delicate balance, grave and true, bound by earth, feared horizons, courageous steps unknown, shimmering future hidden yet unveiled....

I think you're the first female cast member to *insist* on playing a guy ;) - Iolanthe, on my cross-casting obsession.

This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, this earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, this other Eden, demi-paradise, this fortress built by Nature for herself... - John of Gaunt, Act II, Scene I, Richard II

"I think perhaps that was a sub-optimal phrasing for the maintenance of harmony within the collective." - Omega, here

"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?" - Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy

#64 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 07 October 2005 - 11:20 AM

Even if all refineries that were workin gback then still are, the demand for oil has still gone up, which means a constant number of refineries actually gives us a decreasing ratio of refinery capacity to demand.

#65 Lin731

Lin731
  • Islander
  • 4,126 posts

Posted 07 October 2005 - 11:31 AM

Quote

President Bush also apparently observed recently that no new refineries have been built since the 1970's. Is that actually accurate, and if it is, why is it such a problem? They're working, correct? What's the expected life of a refinery (just like nuclear plants have a certain number of expected years of being able to function)?


Yes that is accurate. I beleive the last refinery was built in 76 BUT our refining capacity has actually increased by improved technology and additions to existing facilities. Here's some interesting info for you:

http://72.14.207.104...in the US&hl=en

Quote

Information I have received during my ongoing investigation raises serious concerns that the nation’s major oil suppliers have set out in a strategic effort to orchestrate a financial triple play, a coordinated effort that would reduce supply, raise prices at the pump and relax environmental regulations. Unfortunately, in each case, it is the consumer who takes the hit.While the documents target activity on the West Coast and refinery closings in 11 states,they point to practices with significant national ramifications. The companies involved are national companies that operate in multiple states. In addition, gas and oil is a fungible commodity and the amount of capacity that has been taken offline is significant enough to affect national markets.The following information reflects what I have found to date during the course of myinvestigation.

FINDING 1:Oil Companies Articulated their “Need” to Reduce Oil and Gas Supply to IncreasePrices and Grow Profit Margins Facing what they deemed inadequate profit margins in the mid-1990’s, oil companiesreadily recognized that the surest way to drive up profits was to drive down oil and gasoline supply. By restricting supply, they would be able to demand higher prices and reap higher margins for their product. Oil company documents raise questions as to whether this mindset was the underpinning of a strategic business approach in which theindustry willfully engaged to control gas supply.

Internal oil company documents reveal that in 1995 and 1996 competitor companies strategized about opportunities to tighten product supply as a means of increasing profit margins.A “Competitor Intelligence Report” from Chevron dated November 30, 1995states:“A senior energy analyst at the recent API (American Petroleum Institute)convention warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry doesn’t reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial increase in refining margins…However, refining utilization has been rising, sustaining highlevels of operations, thereby keeping prices low.

”1This concern over too-ample supply driving down profits was echoed in a Texacodocument dated March 7, 1996:“As observed over the last few years and as projected well into the future,the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the surplus refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production capacity.The same situation exists for the entire U.S. refining industry. Supply significantly exceeds demand year-round. This results in very poor refinery margins, and very poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or increasing thedemand for gasoline.

”2Not only did the oil companies view excess refining capacity as a financial liability, theyopenly suggested that eliminating the excess capacity and tightening supply would helpimprove their bottom line.These documents show that oil companies had the intent and motive to hamstring supplyand reduce refining capacity. Subsequent events show that they acted.

FINDING 2:Oil Company Competitors Planned Opportunities to Subvert Oil and Gas SupplyOn June 11, 2001, the Wall Street Journal reported that Marathon Ashland Petroleumintentionally withheld reformulated gasoline supply in the Midwest in a contrived effortto keep prices, and profits, artificially high.3 Although Marathon was reported to have operated alone in this instance, documents suggest that over the past five years other leading oil companies have worked together to control the amount of gasoline available on the market.1 Chevron document – Competitor Intelligence Information, November 30, 19952 Texaco memo - Future Gasoline Specifications, March 7, 19963 Wall Street Journal Article, Marathon Ashland Withheld Gasoline, June 11, 2001

A thank you note dated April 25, 1994, from Tosco CEO Thomas O'Malley to ARCO Executive Vice President James Middleton raises serious questions about how the two companies worked together to control gasoline supply in a manner financially beneficial to both companies:“ARCO represents an important part of Tosco's business. We want to do everything we can to nurture this important business relationship and make sure it keeps up the tradition of being mutually beneficial.

”4By highlighting the mutually beneficial “tradition” in which these two competitors engaged, the note points to intentional cooperation to improve their respective bottom lines.During the mid-1990s California, facing severe air quality problems, transitioned to cleaner-burning, reformulated gasoline referred to as CARB (California Air ResourcesBoard) gas. Because this formulation of gasoline was only required in California, fewer suppliers produced the fuel; those who did could play a significant role in setting the price.Documents obtained by my office indicate that several West Coast refiners and suppliers sought cooperative arrangements through which they could keep the supply of CARB gas tight and demand higher prices as a result.The President of ARCO Products Company William Rusnack admitted in a deposition taken May 15, 1997, that he met with Tosco CEO Thomas O’Malley to discuss opportunities to work together to control supply of the cleaner burning gasoline, thus propping up the overall price.“… explore whether or not there was any mutual benefit, any mutualinterest, any profit for both ARCO and Tosco to find a way to have ARCO purchase or Tosco sell CARB [cleaner burning California AirResources Board] gasoline to ARCO, recognizing that the agreementthat was in place at that time did not provide for the supply of CARBgasoline.

”5Cecil Blackwell, a senior Chevron official, described during a deposition a conversation he had with Jay Kowal, a senior ARCO official, in which they discussed possible agreements affecting supply.“And he, as I recall, confirmed their interest …and if we can reach a commercial agreement with them, that he felt, you know, thiscould change some of their investment decisions or change investment decisions of others on supplying CARB gasoline.”64Thank you note to ARCO Exec. VP James A. Middleton from Tosco CEO Thomas O’Malley, April 25,19945Summary of Deposition of William C. Rusnack, President of ARCO Products Co., taken May 15, 19976Summary of Deposition of Cecil Blackwell, Senior Chevron Official, taken February 19, 1997

Based on information obtained during this and other depositions related to a court case currently before the California Supreme Court, the plaintiff’s attorney compiled an index that documents face to face meetings between top competitors in the West Coast oilindustry. These meetings between ARCO and Tosco, ARCO and Exxon, ARCO and Chevron, Chevron and Tosco, etc., expose efforts among the companies to reach agreements to control the supply of oil and gas in the West. Documents obtained as part of the legal proceeding also verify that major oil and gas companies supplying CARB gas to the California market entered into 44 supply-sharing agreements. These agreements were generated to control the quantity of CARB gas on the market, reduce efforts to expand CARB refining capacity, limit imports of CARB gasand discourage excess CARB gas from being sold on the spot market to independent purchasers. Exxon, ARCO, Chevron, Shell, Texaco, Tosco and Unocal all entered into such supply-sharing agreements with at least one of their competitors.Because such agreements benefited the major suppliers and excluded independent operations from the process, significant questions are raised about whether these agreements had the effect of forcing independent refiners to close down – further decreasing overall gasoline supply.In February 1993, Mobil, Texaco and Chevron (with the financial support of Exxon) fileda lawsuit to overturn the small refiners’ exemption to the CARB gas program, reducingthe ability of small refiners to compete in the CARB gas market.An internal Mobil document highlighted the connection between an independent refinerproducing CARB gas, the depressed price that would result, and the need to prevent theindependent refiner from producing.“If Powerine re-starts and gets the small refiner exemption, I believe theCARB market premium will be impacted. Could be as much as 2-3 cpg(cents per gallon)…The re-start of Powerine, which results in 20-25 TBD(thousand barrels per day) of gasoline supply…could…effectively set theCARB premium a couple of cpg lower…Needless to say, we would all like to see Powerine stay down. Full court press is warranted in this case.”7The Powerine Oil Company refinery closed in 1995. Despite documented attempts to work in conjunction with major oil companies to restart the Santa Fe Springs, Calif.refinery8, the major oil companies stood in the way and the refinery remains closed.7 Internal Mobil Corp. E-mail regarding Powerine refinery, February 6, 19968 Powerine Oil Co. Letter to Mr. M.R. Diaz, General Manager of Supply & Distribution for TexacoRefining & Marketing Inc.

FINDING 3:Closing Refineries: Oil Companies Act to Inhibit SupplyWhile oil companies were making agreements to control oil and gas supply, refineries were closing. Since 1995, 24 refineries have closed, including refineries in California,Illinois, Arizona, Oklahoma, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Michigan and Washington (the Tosco refinery has subsequently reopened), taking nearly 830,000 barrels a day of refining capacity offline. While capacity at some existing refineries expanded during this time, the fact is that more capacity would exist if these refineries were still operating.According to Energy Information Administration, the following refineries were shutdown between 1995 and 2001:YearRefineryLocation1995 9Indian RefiningLawrenceville, ILCyril Petrochemical Corp.Cyril, OKPowerine Oil Co.Sante Fe Springs, CASunland Refining Corp.Bakersfield, CACaribbean Petroleum Corp.San Juan, Puerto Rico1996 10ToscoMarcus Hook, PABarrett Refg. Corp.Custer, OKLaketon Refg.Laketon, INTotal Petroleum, Inc.Arkansas City, KSArcadia Refg. & Mktg.Lisbon, LABarrett Refg. Corp.Vicksburg, MSIntermountain Refg. Co.Fredonia, AZ1997 11Gold Line Refg. LTDLake Charles, LACanal Refg. Co.Curch Point, LAPacific Refg. Co.Hercules, CA1998 12Gold Line Refining Ltd.Jennings, LAPetrolite Corp.Kilgore, TXShell Oil Co.Odessa, TXPride Refg. Inc.Abilene, TXSound Refg. Inc.Tacoma, WA9Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply Annual 1995, volume 1, p. 8010Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply Annual 1996, volume 1, p. 11911 Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply Annual 1997, volume 1, p. 8012 Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply Annual 1998, volume 1, p. 119

YearRefinery Location199913TPI Petro. Inc.Alma, MI200014PennzoilRouseville, PABerry PetroleumStephens, Ark.ChevronRichmond Beach, WA200115PremcorBlue Island, ILThese refinery closures took more than 830,000 barrels per day of refinery capacity outof production.Refinery Capacity Lost Due to Refinery Closures Between 1995 - 2001< Numbers in Barrels per Calendar Day >1995191,750 bbl/cd 161996268,750 bbl/cd 17199787,100 bbl/cd 181998123,650 bbl/cd 19199951,000 bbl/cd 20200025,700 bbl/cd 212001*80,515 bbl/cd 22Total Capacity Lost:828,465 bbl/cdThe major oil companies had a financial interest in seeing the closure of independentrefineries. By reducing the overall supply of oil and gas and reducing the number ofcompanies involved in producing it, the major oil companies can have tighter reins on thesupply and the price.13Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply Annual 1999, volume 1, p. 11614 Phone Conversation with Mark Connor, Energy Information Administration Analyst, May 9, 200115 Ibid.16Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply Annual 1995, volume 1, p. 8017Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply Annual 1996, volume 1, p. 11918 Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply Annual 1997, volume 1, p. 8019Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply Annual 1998, volume 1, p. 11920Energy Information Administration/Petroleum Supply Annual 1999, volume 1, p. 11621Phone Conversation with Mark Connor, Energy Information Administration Analyst, June 12, 200122Ibid.

Oil Companies Reap Benefit of Higher Prices at Pump Despite complaints indicting the cost of environmental compliance and manufacturing“boutique” fuels, in the 2000 the oil and gas industry enjoyed record profits that reflect record gas prices.According to Texaco’s 2000 Annual Report, the company’s production steadily decreased from 1998 to 2000, yet its net income more than quadrupled during the sameperiod – with Texaco posting well above $2.4 billion in net income in 2000.The following charts show this dramatic relationship and point to the tremendousi ncrease in profits for Texaco.Texaco Production Steadily Dropped from 1998 – 2000 Texaco’s Net Income Quadrupled from 1998-2000 Commenting on Texaco’s strong first quarter 2001 showing, Chairman and CEO GlennTilton said in a news release, “Our outstanding first quarter results follow our record fourthquarter and mark the third consecutive quarter that earnings surpassed $800 million.”2523 Texaco 2000 Financial & Corporate Highlights (www.texaco.com/investor/2000ar/index.html)24 Ibid.25 Texaco Press Release: Texaco Reports First Quarter Earning Data – April 26, 2001

Chevron’s net income increased from $2.07 billion in 1999 to $5.185 billion in 2000,26a250 percent increase. During the same period, ExxonMobil Corporation’s net income jumped from $7.9 billion to $17.7 billion.27The trend continued with BP Amoco p.l.c.whose 2000 profits were $11.87 billion, up from $5.008 billion in 1999.28Among these four companies alone, profits for the year 2000 increased by over $22billion dollars in one year. In light of these substantial profits, oil industry claims thatthey cannot afford to comply with environmental regulations or expand their refining capacity lack credibility.

FINDING 5:National Energy Policy Incentivizes Oil Companies to Expand Refinery Capacity The Bush administration’s National Energy Policy, released in May, points to lagging profit margins and costly environmental regulations during the past decade as the reason for lost refinery capacity. The report also states that, “excess capacity may have deterred some new capacity investments in the past,” and that “more recently, other factors, such as regulations, have deterred investments.

” 29Oil companies cited excess capacity in the mid-1990s as a cause of inadequate profit margins. It was this excess capacity that the companies sought to eliminate in order toimprove their margins. Subsequently, refineries were closed. The industry documents cited earlier indicate that oil companies may have closed those refineries specifically totighten supply and drive up costs.This strategy is paying off in multiple ways. In addition to forcing higher gas prices andrealizing exploding profits, the industry now stands to benefit from a national energypolicy that could reward anti-consumer actions by weakening environmental standards.The National Energy Policy verifies that America currently faces tight supply and highprices, as well as the fact that oil and gas companies enjoyed higher profit margins in 2000.“During the last ten years, overall refining capacity grew by about 1 to 2 percent a year as a result of expansion in the capacity of existing, larger refineries. Although there was a significant, sustained improvement in margins during 2000, those gains arose out of a very tight supply situation

26 Chevron Press Release: Chevron Reports Net Income of $1.5 Billion in Fourth Quarter And $5.2 Billionfor 2000, January 24, 200127 ExxonMobil 2000 Annual Stockholder Report, released January 24, 2001, p. 2928 BP Amoco p.l.c. 2000 Annual Stockholder report, released May 8, 2001, p. 3429Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, released May 17, 2001, p.7-13

Industry consolidation has been a key response to this poor profitability”30This is precisely the situation the 1995 and 1996 oil and gas company documents encouraged as a method of improving profit margins.The National Energy Policy calls for efforts to “streamline” environmental regulationsand permitting to provide financial incentives for oil and gas exploration anddevelopment and to institute cost benefit analysis when implementing environmentalregulations.Some of the specific recommendations from the Bush administration’s National EnergyPolicy include:“Recommendations:• The NEPD Group recommends that the President directthe Administrator of the Environmental ProtectionAgency and the Secretary of Energy to take steps toensure America has adequate refining capacity to meetthe needs of consumers.•Provide more regulatory certainty to refineryowners and streamline the permitting process wherepossible to ensure that regulatory overlap is limited.•Adopt comprehensive regulations (covering morethan one pollutant and requirement) and considerthe rules’ cumulative impacts and benefit.• The NEPD Group recommends that the President direct theAdministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, inconsultation with the Secretary of Energy and otherrelevant agencies, to review New Source Reviewregulations, including administrative interpretation andimplementation, and report to the President within 90 dayson the impact of the regulations on investment in newutility and refinery generation capacity, energy efficiency,and environmental protection.”• The NEPD Group recommends that the President directthe Attorney General to review existing enforcementactions regarding New Source Review to ensure that theenforcement actions are consistent with the Clean AirAct and its regulations.”3130Report of the National Energy Policy Development Group, released May 17, 2001 p. 7-1331 Ibid. p. 7-14

While these recommendations stop just short of calling for weaker environmentalstandards, the report identifies regulations as one of the causes of the shortage of refinerycapacity. The implication is that regulations could be relaxed as an incentive forincreasing capacity.If this approach becomes reality, the U.S. government will reward the same oilcompanies who perpetuated the gasoline supply crunch, those companies who may havedeliberately worked to close refineries and reduce supply. These companies, alreadyenjoying record profits because of their actions, would reap even higher profits byrecognizing the cost savings of relaxed environmental standards. As a result, oil and gasprofits would continue to rise, the public would be saddled with the costs of dirtier air,and consumers would remain unprotected from high gas prices.


So as you can see by reading through this article. The oil companies are screwing us high, wide and handsome and now the GOP is attempting to ram through revisions to existing legislation that does NOTHING to help consumer and everything to help big oil. Much of this revision bill is crap they couldn't pass with the initial legislation so now after Katrian and Rita they are siezing on an opportunity to do what they couldn't get done before.
Posted Image
Posted Image

#66 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 08 October 2005 - 01:46 PM

Spectacles, on Oct 6 2005, 07:17 AM, said:

it's astounding to me that these statements somehow support Delvo's contention that Democrats badmouth corporations all the time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's because you're looking for direct statements like "Corporations are bad!", and they're not there. It's built in in a more subtle way, treating the "badness" of large businesses as so axiomatic that it goes without saying and can be used as the basis for other statements that depend on it as corollaries without question. And you do some of it yourself, too. (For example, saying that it's about abuse and corruption, not large businesses being large businesses, makes no difference when one treats the two things as one and the same anyway by saying or implying that all big businesses are abusive and corrupt and that just BEING large businesses is what MAKES them abusive and corrupt... just like saying that one only objects to tax cuts when they're "tax cuts for the rich" makes no difference if one also keeps declaring every tax cut to BE just for the rich.) It's not the woven pattern; it's the thread it's made from...

Quote

"President Bush’s give-away-to-corporate-America environmental policies are pointed attacks on the middle-class. Under the Bush Administration, our nation’s most toxic waste sites are not being cleaned up.
The subject is the environment, but class warfare and "corporations as the bad guys" got worked into it anyway. Why? Because it sounds bad to Democrat speechmakers & audiences and fires them up emotionally.

Unless they were talking about a situation where the government really was paying some company to not clean up something, the quoted statement is a lie, which means it was only worded this way and put in there to invoke the specter of corporations. If this was a reference to actual situations of the government paying for non-cleanup, then it's still a lie because that giveaway was to a certain specific company or companies, not "corporate America", AND the "abuse/corruption" here would be on the government's part, not on the part of a company that does what it's hired and paid for. So even in that best-case scenario regarding the integrity of the quoted statement, there was still no reason to make it about "corporations"... except for either making corporations in general look bad or appealing to an audience that already believes they inherently are.

And either way, that kind of conflation and topic drift within just one or two sentences, from the issue of government's bad environmental policy to finding a way to include the word "corporate" in a sinister context, can only be deliberate. It's saying, without saying it, that corporations, not any specific ones that others aren't responsible for or specific actions taken by anybody, but just "corporations" merely for existing as corporations, are the cause of environmental problems.

Quote

And above all, don't forget the prime directive, the philosopher's stone, the alpha and omega, the answer to every question: never stop cutting taxes on the wealthiest individuals and the most powerful corporations, come hell or high water, in war as in peace, and in debt as well as in surplus.
Obviously, this person means low tax rates for corporations are bad... which means high tax rates on corporations would be good... which means, since taxes harm the entities being taxed, that it would be good to deliberately do harm to corporations. That's punishing them for being corporations. Even if you justify higher tax rates in general according to the Federal budget's needs, picking one group of people or entities to inflict them on preferentially over others in response to that is still punishing them for existing and being what they are.

Quote

Our plan will cut the deficit in half in four years by ending tax giveaways that are nothing more than corporate welfare

Quote

That's why John Edwards and I intend to restore fiscal discipline... by closing tax loopholes that are nothing more than corporate welfare

Quote

End corporate welfare, close loopholes, pay fair share. (Jan 2004)
"Closing tax loopholes" sounds a lot like the "simpler, smaller tax code" that conservatives want; they even use the term "closing loopholes" themselves. This is an issue on which Kerry & Edwards could have sucked support away from the other side of the aisle to themselves by appealing to what they had in common with conservatives as fiscally conservative Democrats. "Tax loopholes" sound bad by themselves because conservatives as well as liberals understand that "loophole" means something that can be manipulated in ways that are wrong and bad and contrary to the intent and overall good of the system. But they just couldn't leave it at that. They felt compelled to add more description to the thing that everybody already knows is bad by adding "...which are nothing more than corporate welfare". Since they're talking about something that's bad (tax loopholes), the addition referring to corporations must be either to explain what makes them bad (loopholes are bad because corporations can use them) or to just invoke an even viler concept/image (corporations) to add emphasis to how bad the loopholes are. Either way, it's the corporations that are really the original foundation-level evil to these speechwriters and their audiences, and the loopholes derive their badness from that, not the other way around. Otherwise, adding in a version of the word "corporation" to describe loopholes would serve neither purpose; it wouldn't be the explanation of why loopholes are bad and it wouldn't make their description sound even worse than the word "loophole" does alone.

Quote

"This is a blatant example of corporate welfare, full of pork for the special interests. This is not, as the expression goes, "this little piggy goes to market." This is the whole hog lot goes to the public trough. The oinking is so loud, the Republicans can’t even think straight. If you listen closely, you can hear those hogs oinking. Can you hear them?
This not only uses the substitution of "corporate welfare" for whatever process is really being referred to here for that added contemptuous verbal "pop" which can only work because of how they feel about the word "corporate", but also combines that with simple wisecracking that says nothing of any political substance... thus demonstrating in another way that "corporate/corporation" is a word Democrats throw out when they're in the mood to go for venom-spitting and their idea of jokes and gotcha-zingers, instead of really discussing issues. And that kind of use for that word or those words can only work for people with a deep, visceral hatred of corporations.

A bit of an aside here: This has reminded me of some other past situations where non-liberals or non-Democrats would say that liberals or Democrats say/believe X, then liberals/Democrats quote each other saying Y to show that they didn't say X, and I've ended up describing how that means they did say X without saying it, because Y can't possibly work without X... like if I say I often eat catfish because fish has less saturated fat than other meats and the oceans are being overfished, you know perfectly well I'm also saying that I believe saturated fat is to be avoided and catfish don't come from the oceans, even though I didn't make those statements, because they're built in to what I did say and what I did say can't work without those other facts working as its foundation. There seems to be a tendency for liberals/Democrats to say Y and deny X even when there's no doubt to their opponents that anybody who said Y must believe in X anyway because X is a crucial premise to Y. Even in the few quotes above, I saw a few more Xes hiding: that all money rightfully belongs to the government, not to private entities, and government letting anyone else use it is just being generous (because government taking less away from private entities in taxes is referred to as "giving money away" or "welfare", which is giving money away); that government policy is a matter of picking sides in a conflict between classes and government should side with the middle against the others (because so-called "attacks on the middle class" are brought up even when that subject has nothing to do with anything); and that government itself is inherently a universal good, does no wrong itself, and is the solution to problems created by other entities (because all of government except George Bush himself is, in the way the toxic-waste quote is worded, absolved of all responsibility for paying corporations to keep the environment polluted as the quote claims is happening). But I know from experience that no matter how many times liberals say stuff with those ideas built in, practically none of them would ever directly acknowledge believing them. I wonder if this indicates a general rule about the personality traits of the people who end up on each side, that they have different sensetivities to this kind of "X hidden in Y" stuff, since they really seem to expect people not to think of X when they say Y, no matter how unavoidable the link seems.

Spectacles, on Oct 6 2005, 07:17 AM, said:

Democrats badmouth corporate abuse and corruption.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

None of the above quotes described any abuse or corruption committed by businesses; they just invoked "corporations" as an automaticly, inherently bad thing. What's described is businesses doing what they're hired for and setting themselves up to pay as little tax as they can under a given set of tax laws... the same as you and most of the rest of us, and smaller businesses, do. To justify the negative use of the word "corporate" or "corporation" as really being all about "abuse and corruption" even in the absence any mention of those things is to equate corporations with abuse and corruption, declaring that they're all abusive and corrupt because abuse and corruption are part of what it means to be a corporation. Otherwise, the word substitution of using "corporations" to represent and symbolize the "abuse and corruption" that you say it's really about just can't work.

If Democrats have actual cases of abuse and corruption to talk about, they should do so in a way that actually talks about the abuse and corruption, instead of just talking about the corporations' corporateness.

Spectacles, on Oct 6 2005, 07:17 AM, said:

And if you look past the phrases like "corporate welfare" and look further into the text of, say, Kerry's "Speech at the Boston Chamber of Commerce," then you see stuff like this:

Quote

I think it’s urgent that we put in place an economic strategy geared to the huge challenges to our competitiveness.

Quote

The bottom line is: a national budget should reflect your values and priorities, but the choices in our budget today have a dramatic negative impact on our nation’s ability to innovate and compete. This moment is screaming for focus on skills training and technical education. We should ease access to loans, venture capital and R&D. We need trade that protects intellectual property and levels the playing field. We need a tax code that rewards investment in American production and American workers. And instead of more tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans, we must make the long-term investments that create wealth in America.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Notice that when he says anything about actually wanting prosperity in the USA after all, he's not talking about corporations anymore; he's working hard to avoid verbally letting them in on this by either talking about benefitting only individual workers and small businesses or using nebulous catchwords like "competetiveness" and "innovate". Corporations remain the enemy because they're only mentioned in other separate quotes to talk about what's wrong with them, and they're omitted from description of how or where he wants things to go well. It couldn't be any clearer that he's saying he wants things to go well for workers and small businesses but not big corporations.

Spectacles, on Oct 6 2005, 07:17 AM, said:

And he was using the government's response to Katrina, which includes amazingly wasteful no-bid contracts to the usual politically-connected mega-corporations

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Look at what you just said yourself. You're saying that the situation is bad and describing how bad it is... and you added a "mega". What's it there for? It doesn't make any sense to bring up a company's size in a description about what's wrong with using them, unless you believe that the corporations just being too big and corporate is, itself, part of the problem.

* *

PS: When I used the word "corporate" as an adjective above, I had flashbacks to a character or two in the South Park guys' puppet movie "Team America", who ranted against corporations but ran out of justifications and ended up at "they're... all corporationy". That got one of the biggest rounds of laughter in my packed-full theater. This seems to be a general image problem Democrats/liberals have, not just a quacky hallucination by a couple of us here. And a group with an image problem should rethink why people have those ideas about them instead of just reacting with shock and awe each time it comes up.

Edited by Delvo, 08 October 2005 - 02:06 PM.


#67 Spectacles

Spectacles
  • Awaiting Authorisation
  • 9,632 posts

Posted 08 October 2005 - 02:30 PM

Quote

Delvo: And you do some of it yourself, too. (For example, saying that it's about abuse and corruption, not large businesses being large businesses, makes no difference when one treats the two things as one and the same anyway by saying or implying that all big businesses are abusive and corrupt and that just BEING large businesses is what MAKES them abusive and corrupt... just like saying that one only objects to tax cuts when they're "tax cuts for the rich" makes no difference if one also keeps declaring every tax cut to BE just for the rich.)

You know, this is such a total misrepresentation of my posts and my opinions, it's so foreign to what I've said and what I think, I was sufficiently insulted to stop reading after this point. I've never said these things, so you have to put the words in my mouth. You've created a strawman so you can build a long, doubtlessly analogy-laden argument against it. It's the same old trick Limbaugh and others use:"Ladies and Gentleman, here's what the liberal says, but let me tell you what that really means." And then they proceed to distort the hell out of whatever was said so that ALL liberals hate ALL business and blame ALL problems on people who just work hard, play by the rules, and get wealthy in the process. That's what you want to argue against, and I'm not saying that unless you rewrite what I said. So I'm bowing out of this pointless exercise. If you're going to put this much energy into denying the existence of corruption, I ain't gonna stop you. In fact, more power to you. America probably looks like a kinder, gentler, cleaner place to you than it does to me if you don't see how royally we're getting screwed--not by ALL businesses but by some, yep, and not by ALL Republicans or ALL Democrats who sell their votes to their campaign donors, but by some.
"Facts are stupid things." -Ronald Reagan at the 1988 Republican National Convention, attempting to quote John Adams, who said, "Facts are stubborn things"

"Although health care enrollment is actually going pretty well at this point, thousands and maybe millions of Americans have failed to sign up for coverage because they believe the false horror stories they keep hearing." -- Paul Krugman

#68 Anakam

Anakam

    Way Star

  • Islander
  • 13,862 posts

Posted 09 October 2005 - 10:27 AM

Thanks for the info, Lin.
Sailing free, boundless glimmer, golden whispers, fiery poise, delicate balance, grave and true, bound by earth, feared horizons, courageous steps unknown, shimmering future hidden yet unveiled....

I think you're the first female cast member to *insist* on playing a guy ;) - Iolanthe, on my cross-casting obsession.

This royal throne of kings, this scepter'd isle, this earth of majesty, this seat of Mars, this other Eden, demi-paradise, this fortress built by Nature for herself... - John of Gaunt, Act II, Scene I, Richard II

"I think perhaps that was a sub-optimal phrasing for the maintenance of harmony within the collective." - Omega, here

"Courtesy is how we got civilized. The blind assertion of rights is what threatens to decivilize us. Everybody's got lots of rights that are set out legally. Responsibilities are not enumerated, for good reason, but they are set into the social fabric. Is it such a sacrifice to not be an a**hole?" - Jenny Smith on Usenet, via Jid, via Kathy



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Politics-American, K-Street Project, Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users