Dictator Arnold

[Prudence]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

I would just like to interrupt this thread to make a brief statement:

Well, at least I didn't vote for him!

There. I feel better now. Carry on.........

You don't vote for kings!

I personally would have voted for the silly party.

(Because no one's taken a thread there in at least a week.)

[Morrigoon]

There's a big difference between corporate shareholders and union members: the unions are "run" actively by their membership. On the other hand, corporate stockholders are what is known as "limited" partners in the business. Their contribution is limited to their investment in the company, and as we've seen with Disney, their power to control anything else (such as the board) is severely limited. For that reason, I could see wanting "active" membership to have a say in how their money is spent, whereas shareholders have already subjected themselves to a position of non-control.

Now, if you wanted shareholders owning over 5% of a company's stock to vote on something, that would be okay because they generally have more power in a company and ought to have more say in how it's run.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Argue the dynamics all you want, the end result is the same...corporations having a cripling advantage over unions in the political arena. It's just another symptom of Arnold's definition of Unions as "special interest groups" and corporations as "impartial supporters". It's disgusting how blatantly two-faced he is about that.

We might as well vote for tax reform that removes all tax shelters and deductions and implements a flat tax, but only for people who make under $150,000 a year. Sure, the general principal may be good (I stress "may", I'm not trying to argue merits of any tax reform proposal, just setting up a hypothetical), but the application to only one segment is ridiculous.