Edwards is wrong negating any negotiations with corporations

[question everything]

like the pharmaceutical and insurance companies.

He cannot make them go away, unless SWAT teams will just raid them and padlock the gates and confiscate all their papers and prohibit them from conducting any business activity.

They are here to stay and any health plan will have to include them to negotiate how they should operate. For example, even if there is a true universal health care - and Edwards' plan is not since he does keep employers in the game - many may choose to purchase private insurance in addition to contributing to universal one. I have always compared it to public and private education.

Thus corporations will be in the game. One can compare such negotiations to "plea bargaining," a process that should be familiar to Edwards.

Four years ago Edwards was on CBS Face the Nation the Sunday before the Iowa caucuses, just as he was this morning. This was my first time to actually pay attention to the upcoming primaries. I was impressed with Edwards, sent him money, even met him in person and shook his hand, joined DU and voted for him in my caucus - that he won - only to hear on the radio, on my way back home, that he pulled out.

This year, while not so sure, again, I sent him money but have been disappointed with his anti-corporation attitude.

So, again, most of us make a living working for a corporation. Many are well paid which allows our discretionary income and taxes to support the economy, including the wages of DUers who are public employees.

We can and should regulate how corporations treat their employees, the obscene gap between the average paid worker and the CEO, the awarding of rich bonuses while raiding the pension funds, etc.

But to declare corporation as the enemy is a losing proposition. Not in this country where the average voter does not hate the rich; he wants to be the rich.

[Mythsaje]

1. Except the average voter is beginning to wake up

and realize he's getting screwed.

Playing nice by the corporations is what put us in this mess. Now it's time we reminded them who's really supposed to be in charge.

[question everything]

9. Keep dreaming

Why, do you think, people continue to get into debt purchasing new cars and new TV sets, etc.?

They like the good life and want to feel how the other half lives.

It is reported that whenever the price of gasoline takes a dip, even a slight one, people drive more and flock back to the SUV dealers.

[laureloak]

30. Corporations would have us believe that the good life is

having the most stuff. But we cannot continue to mold our lives to Corporate values. It's time for the American citizen to grow up and become responsible citizens of the world.

[papau]

2. Health insurance companies lied to Nixon in 73, lied to Clinton in 93 - why trust their word now?

[question everything]

5. You put a set of rules and regulations to make sure they

follow whatever agreements there are.

It is not as if we do not have many regulations for how corporations have to behave, in minimum wage, in holiday and sick pay - when offered, in covering health care for all employees - when offered, etc.

When I lived in California - and perhaps this is true in other states - the more employees a company laid off, the more it had to contribute to the state unemployment fund.

We can have something similar. Every time that a private insurance company terminates a policy, it has to contribute to a state health fund.

[bread_and_roses]

20. So private insurers would get the healthy; public the really sick - now THAT'S a recipe

for bankrupting the public coffers, all right. What part of "profit doesn't work for "consumers" in health care" don't people get? Insurers protect their profits by cutting off and denying care to the most needy - not a sane system for providing health care.

I think Edward's health care plan has major flaws, but is no worse than the other candidates, while his straightforward language on what Corporate rule is doing to the workers of this country is right on target. The other candidates are not even speaking that language. Edwards is also the only one really talking about the poor.

[denem]

26. France, UK, Canada, Australia

all have universal public AND private insurance.

[papau]

27. rules/regulations for Ins. co's are necessary -but getting agreement beforehand is not - they won't

keep any agreement so that anything you gave up to get that agreement was a pointless giveaway. Life ins co's in the US keep their word - health insurance co's do not - I know many of the players of the past and a few of the current - the next generation of CEO's and majority or controlling interest folks may be different - but today any agreement with the health insurance companies may as well be put in a bathroom stall so the paper it is written on has some use. And if no paper, I guarantee that as the words flow out of the mouth of the lobbyist, the wind is the only thing that will ever reflect their being spoken.

[kurth]

3. The only language corporate execs understand is power

Negotiation means giving away some of that power - Look at the GOP's Medicare drug bill which specifically prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services from negotiating with drug companies for lower prices...

[question everything]

7. Don't blame corporations for this, blame Congress

that went along with it.

Do you really think that if Congress included negotiations, the pharmaceuticals would have left the room? Who else buy their products? Mostly seniors.

[NI4NI]

21. I am 1000% behind JE bustin' the Big Biz hold on us,

my only concern is how will he be able to get it done as long as there is not a solid Dem majority in the Senate, but still 49 republickers (Lieberman included) who can still procedurely obstruct any of JE's plans from taking BiG BiZ influence and money out of their pockets? I want him to, we all need him to do it, and I hope he can, if he gets the chance.

[question everything]

28. And this is why it will be important to cross bridges

to reach some kind of agreement with the other side. This is what Clinton did.

Of course, if Edwards is the president, and he does start negotiating - since this is what life is - he will be tarred and feathered on DU.

People on DU forget that politics is the art of compromise. This is why we are so polarized, each holds on to his own opinion with no willingness to compromise.

[OHdem10]

4. I think most people have common sense enough to know

that Edwards is referring to the Bush Cheney permitting the
Energy Companies essentially write their first Energy Bill.

He is like wise referring to Medicare Bill--GOP had Lobbyists
in the room as they wrote the bill. (Oops about 9-11 Dems
voted for that Bill.

Most Americans know and Edwards understands that Corporations
and Business Interests must be considered.

The Difference with Edwards--People's Interest come first for
achange. The middle class will not be thrown under the bus
to satisfy Corporate Interests.

[last1standing]

6. As with everything else, you're framing this in black or white only.

Edwards isn't saying that we need to to destroy corporations and you know that. He's saying that the corporations are out of control and that we need to replace the regulations and restrictions that years of republican control have eliminated.

So please tell us all what was so wrong with the regulations that were in place before reagan got into office? Tell us what is anti-corporate about being pro-worker? Hell, even tell us what is wrong with admitting that you still agree with Edwards based on your own comment ("We can and should regulate how corporations treat their employees, the obscene gap between the average paid worker and the CEO, the awarding of rich bonuses while raiding the pension funds, etc.")? As you know, neither of the other two likely candidates is really interested in making these things issues so why not support the only one who is?

Or you could just avoid the questions and make up your own like everyone else seems to do lately.....

[question everything]

13. If this is what he says, great!

Yes, I do consider the Reagan years as the beginning of destroying the life of middle class people, when merging and acquisitions closed so many small companies and played a major part in turning us from a manufacturing to a service based economy.

But, this morning, he specifically attacked Obama - not my choice, BTW - for agreeing to sit and negotiate with corporations.

[last1standing]

14. There are levels of negotiation

Obama has been very open about his desire to "sit down at the table" with corporations and allow them a relatively strong voice in how future legislation is produced. Edwards feels that its time to stop letting the corporations have such a role. That doesn't mean that he's hungry to destroy corporations, only that they've held complete sway for too long and it's time to hear from other people now. I'm pretty sure that none of the candidates, including Kucinich, would act in any way that would harm business in this country, but I'm also pretty sure that some candidates would be less likely to capitulate to corporate interests and that Edwards has the best chance of this group.

The problem with corporations today is that their boards think only in terms of short-term interests as they are unlikely to be there that long. Because of this, they don't act in ways that produce healthy infrastructures or look to the well being of their greatest assets, their workers. Fair trade policies and regulations would benefit not only the middle-class but the wealthy as well - over the long term. I think Edwards gets that and the other two top candidates do not. We'll see soon what the rest of the country gets.

[Faygo Kid]

8. That's how FDR did it.

Think Edwards is using strong language? Listen to FDR, 1936, about corporate power:

"They are unanimous in their hate of me–and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first administration that in it the forces of selfishness and the lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second administration that in it these forces met their master."

Like FDR, Edwards would set the ground rules, and the first rule is to break the corporatist stranglehold on Washington. That's what Edwards is talking about, and what FDR had to do to save this country during the Depression.

[waiting for hope]

31. If I could Rec a reply -

You would have it.

[Armstead]

10. The issue is who has the upper hand

if elected, I'm sure Edwards will end up negotiating and compromising with corportions.

However, what is important is the priorities and starting point. Edwards presumably won't go into such negotiations with his hat in hand or go in with a wink and a nod to his corporate and Wall St. suppoerters.

For too many decades, the starting point has been to placate corporations, and to assume we are at their mercy. Therefore, combined with the obscene power of lobbyists, we end up with policies that start out giving corporations the upper hand over the interests of the majority.

But in fact, it is we the people who have the power. Just like us individuals, corporations have to obey the law, and accept what policies are put into place by the majority. I can't go to court and tell the judge that I don't plan to pay my speeding ticket because the speed limit does not suit my convenience.

Also, anti-corporatism is not the same as anti-business. Small and medium sized businesses are getting just as screwed as workers and consumers by polices that favor the rich elites.

For example, you mentioned health care. When insurers jack up their rates at will, or impose grisly conditions on their employer plans, other businesses suffer.

[stillcool]

11. If no one takes on multi-national...

corporate ownership.. nothing will change..not even ideas. The pendulum has swung too far. That said, I don't believe any single person/candidate has a chance of making significant changes in the ownership of our government. So, I suppose folks like Dennis Kucinich, and John Edwards might as well not even bother.

[sandnsea]

18. Edwards says he's going to shut them out, big difference

You can't make them illegal, so they're going to have to be negotiated with. That's the truth. It's just plain old electioneering to say otherwise.

[stillcool]

19. You can't make them illegal..

but you can pass laws that make all of their illegal actions legal. I suppose that's what the 'legislative branch' is for.

[cali]

12. It's red meat rhetoric, and it's effective

look around DU. But the truth is that Edwards knows that he'll have to negotiate and work with corporate types- and if he's president he will, but I believe he'll also try and do something about some of the issues you raise in your post. And I'm not an Edwards supporter.

[LWolf]

15. That's the one thing he is promoting

that would actually have any chance of attracting my vote in the GE.

No corporate personhood, and no corporations at any table deciding any policy. That's essential to excising corruption from our government at this point in time.

[Democrats_win]

16. Good info from everyone on this thread. I'm beginning to like Edwards.

I like his anti-corporation sentiments. It's good that DUers are pointing out that Edwards isn't wholly anti-corporation.

Corporations have had it pretty good for the past 27 years included the prosperous President Bill Clinton years. Then they screwed us over during the Bush years. BIG TIME!

If anything it's time for payback. Screw the corporations and their CEO/Wall Street parasites into the ground. If Edwards-type sentiment doesn't take over, then something more radical will put corporations in their place: Hear the people scream!

[sandnsea]

17. Pharmaceuticals, equipment, an entire industry

There's profit from top to bottom. We aren't going to get profit out of health care. I don't know what the solutions will be, but corporations are going to have to be at the table.

It's just a phony line by a phony candidate.

[bread_and_roses]

22. They only "have to be at the table" if "we" offer them a seat

Look, I don't expect genuinely universal,publicly funded, single payer health care out of any of the Dem candidates at this point. But elsewhere in civilized, First World countries Corporations do not' determine who gets health care and who gets to go home and die because they can't afford treatment - or go home to choose between food or heat and medicine - or go without a mammogram -because they are un/under-insured.

We don't have to have this insane, profit-driven system, we allow it.

Just as we don't HAVE to have corporate-funded elections, or huge pay-outs in tax breaks and subsidies to already profit-gouging corporations. We choose or allow these conditions. At least Edwards is raising some of the right questions. None of the others (always excepting Kucinich, of course) are.

[sandnsea]

23. If you truly believe that

then you haven't even looked at what any of the other candidates have said or done. I don't even like Hillary, but we wouldn't even be having this conversation if she, and others, hadn't taken steps to broaden health care coverage to more people. Edwards was filling his pockets when others were working for the people.

[JDPriestly]

24. You misunderstand. The problem is that the corporations

often write the regulations and laws that are supposed to keep them honest, make sure their products are safe and encourage the kind of fair competition we need to keep our capitalist system healthy.

Also, the staff of the regulatory agencies and the aides in Congress go in and out of those official jobs, jobs in corporate America and positions in law and lobbying firms representing corporate America so that, essentially the same people who regulate and write legislation pertaining to the corporations depend on the corporations for their daily bread. It's a bad situation. Edwards became aware of just how that reality prevents our system from representing and protecting the interests of the American people while he was in the Senate and as a lawyer. A senator gets to vote yea or nay -- if the only bills to vote on were written by the corporations, how much does that yea or nay really mean? Is it any wonder that congressmen vote for a thing before they vote against it and vice versa?

Edwards is not going to refuse to negotiate with corporations. He has been negotiating with them all his career. In fact, he probably has more experience negotiating with corporations than any other candidate on either side. What Edwards is hoping to do is to stop what is called the "revolving door" between corporate America and the regulatory agencies and White House offices that should be representing everyone and not just corporations. Don't worry. Edwards is not a naive fool. When he says the corporations can't sit at the table, he means they will no longer be pushing everyone else away so that they can write our laws by themselves. I say, Hurrah for Edwards.

I think it was Jefferson who said we don't need to worry about making sure the interests of the wealthy are represented in our government. They know how to take care of themselves. I don't have the citation. Sorry. And even if he didn't say it, someone should have. Wealthy people know how to take care of themselves. The corporations will get a voice and a place at the table. But with Edwards, they won't get to occupy all the seats or eat all the food. They will take what is left after we real people have finished. And, as you point out, many of us work for corporations or have our own businesses. So, to some extent, the interests of the corporations will be represented by those of us who are in those categories also -- as individuals, however, sharing the room at the table with other individuals. For once, our voices, as employees and small business entrepreneurs will be heard. We will not be totally squeezed out by the huge, monied corporations.

[question everything]

29. Thank you for a comprehensive reponse

but this means that the ball is in the hands of Congress.

After all, this is the legislative body and, yes, we all are familiar with the revolving door - Trent Lott just went through it.

The only thing that a President can do, apparently, is to either veto or sign a bill.

I don't know how closely "The West Wing" was to the real working of Washington, but there, the White House often promised goodies to individual members of Congress for them to vote on a bill. And, of course, there is always the bully pulpit.

[JDPriestly]

32. The bully puplit is enormously important.

The veto power allows the president to cut deals. That is what a lawyer like Edwards knows how to do. You don't just win in the courtroom. You cut deals. Even when you win a big verdict, you have to hold onto it. That is, you have to expect an appeal. And to avoid the risk of appeal or to avoid losing on remand after an appeal, or to outright avoid losing the appeal or having your damages reduced on appeal, you deal with the other side. This is, no doubt, Edwards' forte. Holding his opponents' feet to the fire. I can't blame the corporations for being afraid of him. But, on the other hand, I believe that Edwards is very fair. He is not an extremist, not like George W. Bush. I think the better Americans get to know Edwards, the more they will trust and like him.

[JustAnotherGen]

25. I work for a company

with over 50K employees. I make an excellent salary.


But I have never heard of Edwards wanting to 'get rid of the corporations'.


He wants to call them to task. I'm not afraid. We are a strong company that displays good business ethics. With excellent benefits. We do the right thing at times when it's not always the most profitable - and that's why we have profits the way we do.

If the company is 'dirty', and employes 'dirty unethical business practices' - then they DESERVE to be called to the floor. Even the one I work for.

The verdict is in - the Health Insurance Fraud Industry and Pharmaceutical Industry . . . they need to be punished and beat down into submission.

[Tess99]

33. Edwards is for negotiating with corporations

At least he was earlier this year on Charlie Rose. He was for negotiations before he was against them. LOL!

Here's the video:

http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/video-john-edwards-on-charlie-rose-agrees-with-obama-on-corporations-voices-should-be-heard/