What is the proper relationship between business and government?

Or business & political parties?

The republicans are obviously wholly owned by corporate America, but the only thing a lot of Democrats don't like about that is they aren't owned too.

How do you define the relationship without sounding anti-business, anti-capitalism, but not let the government be captured by business like it is now?

president, VP, senators, generals in Pentagon should be banned for life from sitting on corp or bank board, serving as corp officer, lobbyist, or taking speaking fees. We give them a very generous pension. They want to do this other shit, fine. Rescind the pension.

The bill should be called "the Dick Cheney Anti-Corruption Bill."

speech for a non human organization to make bribes to elected officials..

it is a Fascist definition that business bribes government with campaign contributions.. which is nothing but a bribe for a favored vote

I want to know why those talking heads aren't discussing this?

If Phil Donahue was on t.v., he would bring it into our living rooms. Phil Donahue was ahead of his time in so many ways. Didn't he set up a two way communication between an American audience and another in Russia so that the two could communicate? I remember it was the first time I thought to myself, wow, these people are just like us, but maybe more humble. It took Ronnie some time to figure out that t.v. would eventually prove that all his gloom and doom talk about the evil Communist empire would go up in smoke.

They don't want to open that question up to public scrutiny.

In the middle decades of the 20th Century, America had probably it's most regulated economy in the nation's history. It also had its' strongest economy, an extremely healthy business climate and a great broadening of prosperity among a larger percentage of the population.

Obviously it's not quite that simple. America was far from a paradise, and there were too many corporate abuses and too much poverty. And problems arose in the 70's that had top be dealt with.

However, in comparative terms, the balance between business and government was much healthier then than it is now, and society was a lot better off. Since then, we have lost that balance, and business has superceded the public interest to an alarming degree. And we're seeing the negative consequenes.

So basically, I'd say look back a few decades to see what is a much preferable direction and balance than now.

American workers were, on the whole, better off than they are now. Society had better basic values as reflected by government too.

It's not necessary to ideralize that period to recognize that, on the whole, the majority of Americans had a lot better shot at job security and a decent standard of living than today.

in that government of the people, by the people and for the people needs to stand with the people in keeping cartels of rich businessmen called corporations from harming them or the country.

That isn't happening with either party, sadly. The people are undefended.

.... but I'm sure of one thing ..... corporations are not people and don't deserve the same protections as people. But neither are they inherently evil.

The relationship between government and/or political parties and corporations would change dramatically with just three simple words: Campaign Finance Reform.

It should be illegal for corporations to make political statements. They have no right to free speech. The CEO can say any damn thing he wants, but the company can't and has no right to. Ergo, no campaign contributions.

In the end, I think this all comes down to the buying of influence in ways both legal and illegal.

Just as they occur to me as I type this ...... no budling of campaign contributions. If a CEO or a janitor want to make a political contribution, the same rules and limits apply. But a corporation cannot give one damned dime. Neither can they fund political ads or contribute to them. Political ads would have to be funded entirely by discernable, documented private citizen contributiuons. Violate our campaign finance laws - or conspire to do so - and go to jail and sleep with a big horny, smelly, hairy guy named Bubba. This is easy to define. All contributions must be documented and attributed .... and can ONLY come from individual US citizens. The actual campaigns would be 100% publically financed.

Another issue with corporations ...... tax them to discourage bad behavior and give tax breaks to encourage good behavior. Then collect the damned taxes! Corporate profits may well decline for a while ...... but they'll soon enough get with the program when, for example, WalMart watches Costco kick their ass.

But at the end of it all ..... only real, live, breathing, haircut-getting, US citizens can make any contributions to either candidates or ads in support of one or another politcal party. Just get the corporations out of the political arena.

I could go on ....... but I need a haircut.

"Of the people, by the people, for the people" and a non-human entity, such as a corporation, does not qualify as "We the people". The government serves us and therefore it should protect OUR interests, not the interests of big business.

consumers, employees, and the spectators are everyone else not involved in the transaction. Governemnt shouldn't be biased in favor of any team and should enforce the rules that everyone agrees to through a democratic process (which is the part that doesn't have a sports analogy).

I have a small business, which is partially covered by state and federal regs. That's fine. We really need to be ethical and need others to be ethical as well. That is the governments role in business. Regulate it, make it fair for all, and the good companies will win out in the end, mostly. If a person has no business sense, or is crooked, he or she shouldn't succeed. But alas, in the new version of America, small business has little chance to survive. The big guys are in the pockets of almost all of the politicians, Democrats included. I have a lifelong friend, a Republican, who owned a hardware store in the small town where I grew up who laid it out for me. Give the people what they want at a fair price, and they will keep coming back. Except now, when Wal Marts rule the world. Businesses should be allowed to rise and fall on their own.

Without government imposing regulations for the public good (think workplace rules and product safety) big business has little incentive to impose such rules on their own accord. Sure, if they're getting sued they'll change behavior, but short of that it's hard for any corporations to do the right thing if profit is at risk. A proper balance is difficult to achieve but when government is controlled by corporate interests, there's a fox in the hen house.

citizenship. Ever since our "great leaders" gave corporations the same rights as citizens we have been in decline.

Point #1. Corporations, unlike citizens, can live for generations, not unlike Dorian Grey. This means that they can continue to gather wealth and power while the rest of us simply die and fade away. (recent example, Wall mart).

Point #2. Under current law, corporations have the same "rights" as an individual. Unfortunately, they do not have the same responsibility. Poison your neighbor, get 25 to life, poison an entire community, litigate until all whitenesses are dead, then, if found culpable, pay a fine. Said fine being a small percentage of the profit made by ignoring the law. Write fine off your corporate taxes for a net gain. Prison time? none.

Point #3. Even Adam Smith knew that the "invisible hand" didn't exist. As long as wealth could influence legislation, those with wealth would skew regulation in their favor. Welcome to the world. The "free market is a farce. Corporations exist to shield citizens from accountability. Profit is God, and like God, can influence legislation. What is good for General Motors, is good for the people who profit from labor. It is NOT good for those who labor.

Point #4. Why does "Communist China" have a multi-billion dollar surplus, while Kapatilist Amerika has the biggest deficit in the history of mankind?