The Corporate Takeover of the United States

[Kaon]

• David Bernhardt: a former gas and oil lobbyist runs the Department of the Interior.
• Andrew Wheeler: a former coal lobbyist runs the Environmental Protection Agency.
• Alex M. Azar II: a former pharmaceutical lobbyist and drug company executive runs Health and Human Services.
• Patrick M. Shanahan: a Boeing executive who once served as Vice President and General Manager of Boeing Integrated Defense Systems runs the Department of Defense.
• Betsy DeVos: a billionaire who's family ranks in the top 100 wealthiest in America runs Department of Education.
• Wilbur Ross: a former Rothschild Investments employ who has investments in the auto, textile, steel, and coal industries runs the Department of Commerce.
• Steven Mnuchin: a former Goldman Sachs executive runs the Department of the Treasury.

So much for the President's campaign promise of "draining the swamp" of lobbyists and those with special interests. The corporate takeover of America looks to be almost complete.

He is doing what he is supposed to do as a businessman.

America has been a corporate entity for decades, but now people are realizing how bad it has been because the President is running the country like it is - a business.

What does that make the citizens, then?

 

[wing2000]

Again... would you rather have someone who has absolutely no clue how the world works?

False choice.

 

[Andrew77]

You seem think that just because they are rich and successful they know how to do any job. The person who oversees the economy is the ONLY person who NEEDS to know "how the economy works". Everyone else should be an expert in their portfolio with an understanding of its impact on the economy. I fail to see how vested business interests in charge is helpful to the public.



I'd want:
Engineer/Civic planner, economist as: Department of the Interior

A, you know, scientist with a background in policy making: Environmental Protection Agency.

A doctor with a focus on patient care: Health and Human Services

Soldier background: Department of Defense.

Instead of Devos? How about the "Welcome" rug infront of my house. That or, let's say an Educational Sociologist or dare I say, teacher or Administrator?: Department of Education.

An economist with STRONG background (not just an investor) Department of Commerce

Anyone from Goldman Sachs at the Treasury? Serious?: the Department of the Treasury.

I would rather not have most of those positions even created.

As long as you have those positions, you guarantee that corporations will influence those positions for their benefit. It really is that simple.

And by the way, You can say that you want 'such and such' type of person in those positions. And that's great. We can all agree that we would like to have those people in those positions.

You are not realizing that it doesn't matter what you want, or what I want, or what is best for the country.

Politics controls who is in those positions. I doesn't matter who would be best. What matters is what politician wants to doll out cushy government positions to people who supported them. Hillary Clinton famously fired the entire Travel office in 1993, to give positions to her close friends and supporters.

This is how government works. This is how it has ALWAYS worked.

And the idea that merely having some qualified guy that has never been in the industry, is going to have a positive effect, just isn't historically accurate. Remember Franklin Raine? Brilliant man, according to his education. Put in charge of Fannie Mae, end up having a massive scandal involving making up false numbers, to give himself and all the executives a bonus.

Fannie Mae ended up being the largest bailout of the entire 2008 crash.

And nothing happen to him either. At least Skillings of Enron fame went to prison. Raines a political supporter of the democrats, never served a day.

 

[Andrew77]

False choice.

I disagree. You either have someone who worked in the sector, and thus knows how it works, or you don't.

Are you saying you can have someone who knows how it works, but never worked in it? That's like saying I can know how brain surgery really works, without every doing, or working in a surgery room. No, you can't. I don't buy that.

 

[wing2000]

I disagree. You either have someone who worked in the sector, and thus knows how it works, or you don't.

Are you saying you can have someone who knows how it works, but never worked in it? That's like saying I can know how brain surgery really works, without every doing, or working in a surgery room. No, you can't. I don't buy that.

Let's take the Department of the Interior -as per their mission statement:

The U.S. Department of the Interior protects and manages the Nation's natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated Island Communities.

Coal and gas are but two of the natural resources that are managed by the Departement....and yet, Trump appoints a former oil and gas lobbyist - whose job it is to represent oil and gas interest.

 

[FenderTL5]

.'.you guarantee that corporations will influence those positions for their benefit. It really is that simple.

bass akwards. E.G. The EPA is there to protect the environment, not find ways for corporations to exploit it for profit.

 

[JackRT]

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
~~~ Benito Mussolini.

This seems to be the trajectory that this administration is following.

 

[Andrew77]

bass akwards. E.G. The EPA is there to protect the environment, not find ways for corporations to exploit it for profit.

Which changes nothing. You can say that.... that's fine. But the reality is, as long as the EPA exists, the companies will find a way to influence it, to expand their profits. Which by the way, is exactly what has happened. The EPA is regularly used as a hammer by large corporations to bash smaller competitors out of the market.

In fact, all government agencies are used this way. All.

 

[Andrew77]

Let's take the Department of the Interior -as per their mission statement:

The U.S. Department of the Interior protects and manages the Nation's natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and other information about those resources; and honors its trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated Island Communities.

Coal and gas are but two of the natural resources that are managed by the Departement....and yet, Trump appoints a former oil and gas lobbyist - whose job it is to represent oil and gas interest.

Again, I don't see the problem.

The Department looks over gas and coal. Great.
The guy supports the gas and coal industries. Great.

What do you think we do with gas and coal? We drill and mine it. We want that. He wants that. The industry wants that.

What exactly do you think he's going to do? I don't understand. Give me an example of what he's going to do that will be so terrible? Give rights to mine for coal? That's a good thing. So.... ok? Give rights to drill for gas? That's a good thing. We want that. So..... ok?

And you seem to be playing this "trump did something bad game".

Do you know who Obama put in place? Sally Jewell. She worked on the Alaskan pipeline project. She worked for Exxon Mobile. And before she was named by Obama to be secretary of the interior, she was CEO of.... get this.... a out-doors retail change the operates near (drum roll) national parks. No conflict of interest there.

Of course, there actually isn't a conflict of interest. The goal is to make the parks good, just like the goal is to effectively use our natural resources. The out-doors retail chain wants good parks, and the coal and gas companies want effective use of resources.

This is what bothers me. When a Democrat appoints the same type of people in these positions, no one says anything. No one complained when Obama put such people in various agencies. But when Trump does it.... oh my goodness! It's so horrible! Yet nothing happens. It's just partisanship.

 

[Nithavela]

Again... would you rather have someone who has absolutely no clue how the world works?

If you don't like having 'foxes' in charge of the 'hen house', then stop building hen houses. If you don't have these un-elected positions, in charge of the economy, you won't have un-elected people in those un-elected positions.

The problem is you want to have some guy controlling the industry. If you have some guy controlling the industry, then by definition you are either going to have ignorant people who screw up the country, or informed people who used to work in the industry.

You create your own problems.

Spoken like a true fox.

 

[variant]

Spoken like a true fox.

Yes. Good victim blaming that.

People vote for protecting the environment so an environmental protection agency is established so that other, more apathetic voters can vote in a guy who wants it to be run by the very polluting industries it was meant to be regulating.

How dare anyone try to fix problems, that's how problems get fixed and then later broken by people with nefarious motives.

 

[wing2000]

Do you know who Obama put in place? Sally Jewell. She worked on the Alaskan pipeline project. She worked for Exxon Mobile. And before she was named by Obama to be secretary of the interior, she was CEO of.... get this.... a out-doors retail change the operates near (drum roll) national parks. No conflict of interest there.

Of course, there actually isn't a conflict of interest. The goal is to make the parks good, just like the goal is to effectively use our natural resources. The out-doors retail chain wants good parks, and the coal and gas companies want effective use of resources.

Look good?

I thought the goal of our National Parks, and indeed, one of the missions of the Interior Department, is to protect our natural areas and public lands for the enjoyment of generations to come.

Who would you entrust? An oil lobbyist or the former CEO of REI?

Then again, maybe we have different views on the role of the Interior Department.

 

[Andrew77]

Look good?

I thought the goal of our National Parks, and indeed, one of the missions of the Interior Department, is to protect our natural areas and public lands for the enjoyment of generations to come.

Who would you entrust? An oil lobbyist or the former CEO of REI?

Then again, maybe we have different views on the role of the Interior Department.

Yes I guess that is the real problem. To some, the purpose of "protect" means deny using it. Obviously if you listen to Democrats like AOC, we'd have everyone dying of starvation after eliminating the use of oil. Or complaining about imported oil, while not drilling for the oil we have.

I do think we should have some protected areas, that's fine. But I think the Feds owning 85% of Nevada is a ridiculous violation of the constitution.

And as for mining and drilling rights, I think they should be released to the states, and the states should have the right to sell those rights to whomever they wish, at whatever price they wish, at the behest of the public of those states.

There is nothing in the constitution that grants the Federal Government the right to control mining in states. The constitution specifically says that all other rights, meaning rights not in the constitution for the Federal Government, are all reserved for the states.

So as far as I'm concerned, the Interior Department should be almost eliminate, or limited exclusively to a few select Federally owned and operated national parks. The people of California, have absolutely no right, and no business, trying to dictate to Nevada how their mining should or should not happen, or where cattle can graze for that matter.

Now, as far as this oil lobbyist in government....

I don't know why you see that as a problem, except that there is strange idea people in business are inherently trying to destroy the planet. As if everyone that isn't a left-wing politician is sitting around all day going "I'm really annoyed more people are getting toxic poison when they walk through a park!"

Again, I mentioned this before... but when you look at Franklin Raine, he was what most people on the left would consider the ideal candidate for being in charge of a government agency. He had never worked in banking, and had a host of ivy league degrees, and no ties to the real world.

But for us on the right, this is the worst possible person. A person who has no idea how to run a company, no idea how mortgages work, has no independent wealth... so he's there to get wealthy from his position.

A guy from a company, is not looking to make money. He's got money. No executive from a major company, is going into a low paying public office, to make money. They don't need to. Why would a CEO step down from CEO making millions of dollars a year, to take a public job earning $125-$150K a year at he Department of Interior?

But flip that around... would a guy who has never worked a real job, and never run a business, and doesn't own any capital, want to get a cushy government job paid $150 to do little? Yeah, absolutely they would. Which is exactly what Franklin Raines got. And that's what he did.

Worse, it is exactly because people on the left-wing tend to assume a guy that has no ties to the industry, would never engage in fraudulent activity, that is how Raines was able to cook the books at Fannie Mae for years, triggering bonuses for the executives at Fannie Mae, all while the government company was slowing sinking in Sub-prime debt.

Would an executive that has billions, engage in fraud, ruin his reputation, all for a few hundred thousand in bonuses? No. He would not. But a life long politicians, that has worked off the tax payers, and never worked a full day in his life.... would he do that? Sure. And because he knew his political supporters would defend him, and they did.

So I trust people from the industry, more than your 'never worked an honest day in his life' political supporter. Now can anyone be corrupt? Sure. But who is more likely? A political supporter who can basically get away with it? Or a former CEO who already has millions, and could lose everything, and people won't defend?

Trust me on this.... If Franklin Raine had been a former Chase executive, he'd be in prison right now. Of course, he likely would not have engaged in fraud to begin with, if he had been a former executive.

 

[Andrew77]

Spoken like a true fox.

Thanks. I'm assuming that this post is evidence that you can't actually respond to what I said with more content than this. Which means you lost.... just FYI.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Here is some more information for our friends who think Trump invented the idea of appointing corporate types to government posts...

From the HuffPost (!)--

Obama's New Pick For Jobs Panel Sends Work Overseas
……………….…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
"Jeffrey R. Immelt, the chairman and chief executive of General Electric Co. tapped by President Barack Obama as his next top outside economic adviser, will be asked to guide the White House as it attempts to jump-start lackluster job creation and spur a muddled recovery.

Immelt’s firm stands as Exhibit A of a successful and profitable corporate America standing at the forefront of the recovery. It also represents the archetypal company that’s hoarding cash, sending jobs overseas, relying on taxpayer bailouts and paying less taxes than envisioned.

The move is the latest salvo in the White House’s continued aggressive and very public outreach to corporate America. Earlier this month, Obama appointed a top executive at JPMorgan Chase as his chief of staff, and this week he granted a longtime wish of business interests by promising to review federal regulations perceived as onerous."

Was that a good or bad thing when Obama did it?

 

[Andrew77]

Yes. Good victim blaming that.

People vote for protecting the environment so an environmental protection agency is established so that other, more apathetic voters can vote in a guy who wants it to be run by the very polluting industries it was meant to be regulating.

How dare anyone try to fix problems, that's how problems get fixed and then later broken by people with nefarious motives.

So in your world, you think that having this guy in there, means oil companies are going to what..... just pump the oil out of the ground, and into the nearest lake or drinking reservoir?

See this is my problem. You seem to assume that the oil companies are sitting around in their executive board rooms, trying to come up with ways to harm people.

Executives are people. Just like you. They are no different than you. They want to keep the place clean too.

Equally, you seem to think this guy is going to what.... pass a rule "ok you can dump toxic waste on the nearest elementary school!".... or something?

What exactly do you think he's going to do?

Even if..... even if he does something, we'll all find out. We'll deal with it, and he'll be dealt with. Unlike Franklin Raines, we won't defend him if he does something terrible.

I still can't even imagine what you think he's going to do that will be so bad. Like a ton of people freaking out over nothing. Nothing has happened. Chill.

You know what this thread illustrates? A lack of perspective. We have an estimated 300,000 sexual assaults in this country per year. We had 107 murders in Chicago so far this year.

What are you worried about? Some guy who is in some public office.

 

[Nithavela]

Thanks. I'm assuming that this post is evidence that you can't actually respond to what I said with more content than this. Which means you lost.... just FYI.

I hope your yuge win makes you happy.

 

[Andrew77]

I hope your yuge win makes you happy.

I'd rather have a worth while discussion, but obviously no one will get that from you. So, yes I'll be happy with this.

 

[variant]

So in your world, you think that having this guy in there, means oil companies are going to what..... just pump the oil out of the ground, and into the nearest lake or drinking reservoir?

See this is my problem. You seem to assume that the oil companies are sitting around in their executive board rooms, trying to come up with ways to harm people.

Executives are people. Just like you. They are no different than you. They want to keep the place clean too.

If it were true that everyone could police themselves then we would in fact need no police.

Your post reeks of both hubris and ignorance.

Some reasons the EPA exists.
List of industrial disasters - Wikipedia

Superfund sites:
List of Superfund sites - Wikipedia

Equally, you seem to think this guy is going to what.... pass a rule "ok you can dump toxic waste on the nearest elementary school!".... or something?

What exactly do you think he's going to do?

Relax regulations on dumping in general and remove enforcement is what I think he will do.

78 Environmental Rules on the Way Out Under Trump

Trump's EPA rolls back Obama-era coal ash regulations

Even if..... even if he does something, we'll all find out. We'll deal with it, and he'll be dealt with. Unlike Franklin Raines, we won't defend him if he does something terrible.

I still can't even imagine what you think he's going to do that will be so bad. Like a ton of people freaking out over nothing. Nothing has happened. Chill.

We can count on you to be critical on a subject you have no seeming information on and are ideologically opposed to?

Maybe when we complain you'll hand-wave it as nothing to worry about and tell us to focus on rapes and murders or something.

You know what this thread illustrates? A lack of perspective. We have an estimated 300,000 sexual assaults in this country per year. We had 107 murders in Chicago so far this year.

What are you worried about? Some guy who is in some public office.

Were not allowed to worry about the corporate takeover of our government while there are murders and sexual assaults in the world now?

Who the heck do you think you are?

 

[Redac]

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."
~~~ Benito Mussolini.

This seems to be the trajectory that this administration is following.

You would think that if you didn't know what "corporate" refers to in corporatism or how it works; or indeed, if you had almost no knowledge of the concept whatsoever.