|
AT&T donated almost $1 million to lawmakers who petitioned for their acquisition of T-Mobile
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 21 September, 2011
Yesterday, 100 House Republicans signed a letter that urged the current administration to end the DOJ lawsuit and let AT&T purchase T-Mobile for $39 billion.
Today, Bloomberg is reporting that 99 of those 100 reps have received political donations from AT&T since 2009, raking in a total of $963,275.
Earlier this month, surprisingly, AT&T's bid to buy the rival carrier was blocked by ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
xaznboitx
Senior Member
|
21. September 2011 @ 15:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
i hate how DOJ tell what company what they can and cannot do. if tmobile wants to sell their company they can... just because DOJ is a lawmaker doesn't mean they rule the entire world... what if att wants to buy verizon as well, they going to block the bidding as well?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. September 2011 @ 15:17
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
21. September 2011 @ 15:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
In Canada, unlike the US, our lawmakers can't be bought.
They are merely rented.
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
21. September 2011 @ 15:22 |
Link to this message
|
|
How is this any different from a bribery? Sounds like you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours. I'm unfortunately broke at college and on a family plan though my father on AT&T. I wouldn't wish their shitty service onto anyone. If it wasn't for the fact that I own an iphone, I would have ditched them and stuck to payphones
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
21. September 2011 @ 15:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
Every one of those Reps needs to be be publicly rooted out, tarred & feathered & thrown out into the street. their assets frozen and made to fend for themselves like all the other Americans they've fleeced (for how many years?). I most assuredly cry, "BULLSHIT!"
In the the cryptic words of Louis Woo, "TANJ!" [There Ain't No Justice]
I just can't help but wonder what kind of windfall this world is going to have to suffer in order to smack the pious from their perch once again so the huddled masses (& of a common playing field) can get things back into a more common working order.
I'm not saying a guy can't have a Ferrari. Nor am I saying everybody deserves one. But I damn sure say there are a BUNCH at the top that don't deserve 40 of them & there are 150,000 people walking that could sure use a Prius, an efficiency apartment & some decent groceries about now.
|
Senior Member
|
21. September 2011 @ 15:50 |
Link to this message
|
|
All those US Politicians should be wearing Nascar-Suit's. So every body will know: Who are they really working for.
Live Free or Die.
The rule above all the rules is: Survive !
Capitalism: Funnel most of the $$$ to the already rich.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. September 2011 @ 02:26
|
|
deucezulu22
Junior Member
|
21. September 2011 @ 17:22 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
i hate how DOJ tell what company what they can and cannot do. if tmobile wants to sell their company they can... just because DOJ is a lawmaker doesn't mean they rule the entire world... what if att wants to buy verizon as well, they going to block the bidding as well?
The hell are you talking about? The DOJ is there for a reason, reasons such as to block companies that can potentially become a monopoly. Good competition means the consumers benefit in the end.
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
21. September 2011 @ 17:40 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by LordRuss:
Every one of those Reps needs to be be publicly rooted out, tarred & feathered & thrown out into the street. their assets frozen and made to fend for themselves like all the other Americans they've fleeced (for how many years?). I most assuredly cry, "BULLSHIT!"
In the the cryptic words of Louis Woo, "TANJ!" [There Ain't No Justice]
I just can't help but wonder what kind of windfall this world is going to have to suffer in order to smack the pious from their perch once again so the huddled masses (& of a common playing field) can get things back into a more common working order.
I'm not saying a guy can't have a Ferrari. Nor am I saying everybody deserves one. But I damn sure say there are a BUNCH at the top that don't deserve 40 of them & there are 150,000 people walking that could sure use a Prius, an efficiency apartment & some decent groceries about now.
If we got rid of these guys we'd have to get rid of everyone in Washington. That's the beauty of the supreme court ruling allowing corporations the ability to spend unlimited funds on "lobbying." They're all wh*res for big business now, not as if they haven't been for a long time.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 21. September 2011 @ 17:48
|
|
hearme0
Senior Member
|
22. September 2011 @ 00:01 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
i hate how DOJ tell what company what they can and cannot do. if tmobile wants to sell their company they can... just because DOJ is a lawmaker doesn't mean they rule the entire world... what if att wants to buy verizon as well, they going to block the bidding as well?
edited by ddp
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. September 2011 @ 23:01
|
Member
|
22. September 2011 @ 00:45 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by llongtheD:
If we got rid of these guys we'd have to get rid of everyone in Washington. That's the beauty of the supreme court ruling allowing corporations the ability to spend unlimited funds on campaign contributions They're all wh*res for big business now, not as if they haven't been for a long time.
|
|
xaznboitx
Senior Member
|
22. September 2011 @ 00:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by hearme0:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
i hate how DOJ tell what company what they can and cannot do. if tmobile wants to sell their company they can... just because DOJ is a lawmaker doesn't mean they rule the entire world... what if att wants to buy verizon as well, they going to block the bidding as well?
edited by ddp
swearing and telling me to grow up makes sense? right
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. September 2011 @ 23:01
|
|
DDR4life
Member
|
22. September 2011 @ 00:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
@xaznboitx:
First of all, the DOJ is NOT telling Deutsche Telekom they can't sell off T-Mobile. They are attempting to prevent AT&T from acquiring T-Mobile. ATT&T claims the merger will improve their network and service overall but what they are really doing is eliminating some of the competition. Which would make them the larger half of a duopoly along with Verizon. This is strictly an anti-trust issue and the DOJ have every right to investigate. If Cox Communications or Time Warner were seeking to buy out T-Mobile, the DOJ would NOT have a problem in that regard.
|
|
llongtheD
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
22. September 2011 @ 03:16 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by Azuran:
Originally posted by llongtheD:
If we got rid of these guys we'd have to get rid of everyone in Washington. That's the beauty of the supreme court ruling allowing corporations the ability to spend unlimited funds on campaign contributions They're all wh*res for big business now, not as if they haven't been for a long time.
My bad, "campaign contributions." Lobbying isn't PC I guess. Whatever you want to call it, its legalized bribery.
If your fish seems sick, put it back in the water.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. September 2011 @ 03:34
|
|
FreddyF
Junior Member
|
22. September 2011 @ 05:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
My bad, "campaign contributions." Lobbying isn't PC I guess. Whatever you want to call it, its legalized bribery.
Not legal at all, it is bribery and extortoin. These days if you do business with the government you are required to make political contributions at the maximum level or loose your contracts, and they tell you that up front. If you are a big company and don't make large political contributions, you run a very high risk of being harassed by multiple government agencies, and while you may be innocent, they can use almost unlimited taxpayer funded resources to shut you down or make it so expensive that you will pay them off to be able to stay in business. Happens all the time, although most large businesses realize the bribes are a cost of doing business, even though the tax law does not allow political contributions as a business expense. Two of the biggest problems are that they police themselves, like that ever happens before being convictes, and the FBI and DOJ are the ones to prosecute. Two organizations who's budget is 100% controlled by congress. Investigations rarely happen and even with evidence that would get a normal person convicted 100 times over it takes many years to actually get them to court and convicted.(@xaznboitx: DOJ IS NOT A LAWMAKING BODY, they only enforce laws, and at the direction of a person appointed by the President, and more recently they have been enforcing laws for purely political reasons.)
We have the worst government money can buy, but hopefully between the president playing golf almost every day and congress' inability to even pass a budget we can survive till the next election, but i have little hope for seeing any honest people on the balots.
Please do not have any doubt in your minds, this has nothing to do with the law and is just one more battle between the president and congress, nothing else matters to these people right now. It's all election season politics, nothing more, and it will cost everyone a lot.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
22. September 2011 @ 05:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
The DOJ is a lawmaking body, or rather, they enforce laws that were never passed. Same with the DEA and ATF. Of course, they often ignore laws that were passed...Operation Fast and Furious sounded like a crazy conspiracy theory until all the facts came out...now it is a crazy conspiracy fact.
...So, while the ATF was enforcing a law requiring all guns sales to be reported (a law that was struck down before it was passed due to being EXTREMELY unconstitutional), they were ordering other gun stores to sell guns to convicted felons so that they could be smuggled to Mexico where they would be used to kill police and innocent people...no other reason, just to cause gun violence in Mexico (and to then exploit said violence).
This is how the whole government works...it just isn't often you get something so cut and dry.
This AT&T thing is just more of the same...congress taking bribes to do things that hurt the country, and demanding extortion money to stay out of the way of things that will help the country. In this case it is the former, but I am sure that Sprint has contributed to the latter for other congressmen.
|
|
Wanpa-Kun
Newbie
|
22. September 2011 @ 10:09 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
i hate how DOJ tell what company what they can and cannot do. if tmobile wants to sell their company they can... just because DOJ is a lawmaker doesn't mean they rule the entire world... what if att wants to buy verizon as well, they going to block the bidding as well?
I happen to agree with the DOJ's decision's and no, they are not lawmakers, they are enforcers of the law, the way they are trying to stop this merger is by filing lawsuit. It would be scary if an agency could do whatever they want. This is why anti-trust laws exist, to keep a company from destroying competition in the market. If AT&T wants to buy Verizon, yes, they should try to block that as well. What do you really think will happen if there are less wireless carriers in the U.S?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. September 2011 @ 10:19
|
Senior Member
2 product reviews
|
22. September 2011 @ 12:18 |
Link to this message
|
|
I think I saw a quote from the Verizon's CEO on the matter.
"AT&T buying T-Mobile is like gravity," he said. "It had to occur. T-Mobile has spectrum, but no capital. And AT&T has the capital but needs the spectrum. If the government wants to stop this merger, it needs to get more spectrum out on the market."
If this is the case and Tmob is endanger of going out of business than maybe ATT taking their spectrum wil atleast be put to use. But if not I hope Tmob stats independent, I'd rather be with them.
"Cable thief is a victimless crime."
|
Senior Member
1 product review
|
22. September 2011 @ 16:00 |
Link to this message
|
I'm just brought right back around to the profound story about life being the one gigantic sandwich of ca-ca. You know, the one where everyone gets to take a bite. Some getting to take more than one bite. Other getting to take a bite for others. And then there is the situation where some folks come to take there turn to take a bite but they have more bread. And as we all know, the more bread you have the less shit you have to eat.
And that's about as Buddha as you'll get Russell to be...
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. September 2011 @ 16:01
|
|
rick_la
Newbie
|
22. September 2011 @ 19:03 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by llongtheD:
Originally posted by LordRuss:
Every one of those Reps needs to be be publicly rooted out, tarred & feathered & thrown out into the street. their assets frozen and made to fend for themselves like all the other Americans they've fleeced (for how many years?). I most assuredly cry, "BULLSHIT!"
In the the cryptic words of Louis Woo, "TANJ!" [There Ain't No Justice]
I just can't help but wonder what kind of windfall this world is going to have to suffer in order to smack the pious from their perch once again so the huddled masses (& of a common playing field) can get things back into a more common working order.
I'm not saying a guy can't have a Ferrari. Nor am I saying everybody deserves one. But I damn sure say there are a BUNCH at the top that don't deserve 40 of them & there are 150,000 people walking that could sure use a Prius, an efficiency apartment & some decent groceries about now.
If we got rid of these guys we'd have to get rid of everyone in Washington. That's the beauty of the supreme court ruling allowing corporations the ability to spend unlimited funds on "lobbying." They're all wh*res for big business now, not as if they haven't been for a long time.
You are right, the Supreme Court was packed with Justices during the past decade that favor the welfare of the rich/businesses over middle class people's constitutional rights. In this case, it wasn?t easy for the Justices to justify this "legal bribery?, the only way they could was to twist it into being the protection of free speech. As Americans, each of us must fiercely defend free speech, but here is the problem with their free speech ruling, I can only afford $100 worth of free speech and AT&T can afford $963,275 worth of free speech. If we are protecting free speech, shouldn?t everyone get the same $?s worth of free speech? How much free speech lobbying can you afford?
I hear/read it every day from Americans being interviewed, saying that everyone should allow Corporations and Billionaires free rein and keep their tax rates lower than the tax rate paid by the middle class, since the rich are the ones that create jobs. Also, that it is okay that the jobs they create are minimum wage...saying that employees should just feel blessed to have any job in this bad economy. What??? Weren?t these the guys/gals making tens and hundreds of millions a year that plunged us into this crappy economy? I am trying to understand, how does bowing down work, we give tax breaks to billionaires, hoping and wishing they will create new jobs with the money.
Come on now, we all know Billionaires are too smart to just create jobs for no reason?like everyone else, they will only create jobs when they have someone willing to buy whatever these new employees produce. We have come to accept that we shouldn?t raise taxes on the rich, since that will drag down the economy, but I propose that we should tax the rich and use that tax money to give tax breaks to the middle class. That will without any doubt stimulate spending and spending will stimulate the economy and as we know, a stimulated economy will create job growth.
We have been sold a theory, that if we raise the taxes on the rich, then the rich won?t create jobs. I am trying to understand this concept, and if I am missing something, then please explain it to me using dollars and cents. As an example, let?s say Billionaire Mr. Rich?s tax rate increases from 15% to 30%. Also assume that this rich person plans on hiring a new employee for $60,000, and that the employee will increase their revenues by $100,000, yielding a $40,000 net profit. At their current rate of 15%, their after tax profit = $34,000, but if they are taxed at 30%, their after tax profit = $28,000. Anybody who would give up $28,000 because their tax went up by $6,000 won?t be a Billionaire very long.
|
Junior Member
|
22. September 2011 @ 19:39 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by hearme0:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
i hate how DOJ tell what company what they can and cannot do. if tmobile wants to sell their company they can... just because DOJ is a lawmaker doesn't mean they rule the entire world... what if att wants to buy verizon as well, they going to block the bidding as well?
Your moronic, narrow-minded, meritless, clueless statement just pissed me off and I must say, against my better judgement since AD doesn't like this "you're an F'ing IDIOT". Monopolies are "unfair business practice" and need to be regulated or the people get screwed. You can't be a U.S. citizen. You just can't be. A single voice or "the little guy" can't fight city hall (as the saying goes that you seem to be grossly unfamiliar with) therefore big business needs to be regulated.
Get a clue and IF you are indeed a U.S. citizen, GET THE F OUT OF THIS COUNTRY........or grow up and correct your adolescent thinking.
Obviously hearme0 works for AT&T
|
|
ddp
Moderator
|
22. September 2011 @ 23:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
hearme0, knock off the flaming & swearing or i'll flame you off this site, posts edited.
|
Member
|
22. September 2011 @ 23:08 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
We have been sold a theory, that if we raise the taxes on the rich, then the rich won?t create jobs. I am trying to understand this concept, and if I am missing something, then please explain it to me using dollars and cents.
I'm not going to comment on your number's because its not a complete economic model. However, I will explain this theory that most Americans have been sold on. The GDP equation:
GDP(the economy)= Consumer spending + Net capital investment + Government Spending + Net exports
Who are the largest spenders in the country? The rich. What the U.S. is trying to do is to both increase taxes and reduce government spending. If you think through it logically you can conclude that this reduces two parts of this equation which lowers GDP. In addition, increasing expenses for corporations (taxes, regulatory, etc..) might have a negative effect on capital investment. Capital investment is closely tied to employment rates and when it goes down unemployment tends to rise.
This is all just basic supply-side theory though. The truth is it gets more complicated than this and like all theories what happens in the real world can be drastically different. The issue here is do you wanna risk it? Increase taxes on the rich and potentially send the economy into a bigger crap hole than it already is.
And that's where we're at. A giant stand-off between corporate America, who is too timid to invest in American infrastructure, and the federal government, who is desperate for funds. We're in a stagnant economy. Instead of a positive economic growth trend we're beginning to flat line. This is just as bad (and potentially worse) than a recession.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. September 2011 @ 23:10
|
|
pmshah
Member
|
22. September 2011 @ 23:49 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
i hate how DOJ tell what company what they can and cannot do. if tmobile wants to sell their company they can... just because DOJ is a lawmaker doesn't mean they rule the entire world... what if att wants to buy verizon as well, they going to block the bidding as well?
You are a senior member but haven't heard of Anti Trust law or Predatory acquisitions?
|
|
pmshah
Member
|
22. September 2011 @ 23:51 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by cleverick:
Originally posted by hearme0:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
i hate how DOJ tell what company what they can and cannot do. if tmobile wants to sell their company they can... just because DOJ is a lawmaker doesn't mean they rule the entire world... what if att wants to buy verizon as well, they going to block the bidding as well?
Your moronic, narrow-minded, meritless, clueless statement just pissed me off and I must say, against my better judgement since AD doesn't like this "you're an F'ing IDIOT". Monopolies are "unfair business practice" and need to be regulated or the people get screwed. You can't be a U.S. citizen. You just can't be. A single voice or "the little guy" can't fight city hall (as the saying goes that you seem to be grossly unfamiliar with) therefore big business needs to be regulated.
Get a clue and IF you are indeed a U.S. citizen, GET THE F OUT OF THIS COUNTRY........or grow up and correct your adolescent thinking.
Obviously hearme0 works for AT&T
You are mistaken. He does not work for AT&T. He must hold a substantial stake in the company.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 22. September 2011 @ 23:52
|
|
pmshah
Member
|
22. September 2011 @ 23:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
I can't believe the reps have devalued themselves to such an extent. The amount per rep is hardly 10k. By Washington standards this is not enough for even a one night of private partying!
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
pmshah
Member
|
23. September 2011 @ 00:00 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by attar:
In Canada, unlike the US, our lawmakers can't be bought.
They are merely rented.
How do you differentiate the two? My take on this would be ....
"Rented" meaning only get payment while holding an office
"Bought" meaning receive payment even before (in anticipation) and after (lost in election/retired) they were out of office.
Please enlighten me !
|
