Obama's Switcheroo

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Mr. Obama leads all candidates in donations from the pharmaceutical industry and commercial banks, among other industries.

Oh my; I thought the GOP was the party of the corporations?

Don't worry, McCane has all those lobbyists working for him. They're giving him advice, girls, planes, etc...

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Mr. Obama leads all candidates in donations from the pharmaceutical industry and commercial banks, among other industries.

Oh my; I thought the GOP was the party of the corporations?

This is another of those half-truths being touted out by Hillary and the GOP. Obama has not accepted any corporate donations

law firms aren't corporations? hm.

half truths? like he doesn't take money from oil companies (because it's illegal?)

Law firms can incorporate now? I thought they were restricted to partnerships.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Originally posted by: Sinsear

Mr. Obama leads all candidates in donations from the pharmaceutical industry and commercial banks, among other industries.

Oh my; I thought the GOP was the party of the corporations?

This is another of those half-truths being touted out by Hillary and the GOP. Obama has not accepted any corporate donations

law firms aren't corporations? hm.

half truths? like he doesn't take money from oil companies (because it's illegal?)

Law firms can incorporate now? I thought they were restricted to partnerships.

There are plenty of Law Corporations. XYZ, A Law Corporation.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Looks like Obama's naive ideals are starting to crash into reality. Every one of those statements that Obama doesnt live up to is going to be used by the Republican attack machine to bash him over the head. As I've stated many times, the media has done Obama and the democratic party no favors by coddling him all this time.

 

[craftech]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Looks like Obama's naive ideals are starting to crash into reality. Every one of those statements that Obama doesnt live up to is going to be used by the Republican attack machine to bash him over the head. As I've stated many times, the media has done Obama and the democratic party no favors by coddling him all this time.

A recent Pew Research poll showed that the number one most covered "issue" by the news media in the 2008 Presidential campaign to date was the media manufactured Reverend Wright issue designed to drive Obama's poll numbers down. Media Mission Accomplished.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=1277

John

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: RY62
-snip-
Yes...and they are reporting it. I have heard reports from television news agencies and a quick Google News search will show other media also reporting.

Yes, craftech I also have heard everything you've mentioned in the MSM.

And probably more...

The FEC has too many seats unfilled to even reach a quorum. It can't officially decide squat ATM against McCain. Ironically, Obama is one of the Senators holding up appointments to the FEC.

While I don't have a copy of the loan guarantee you refer to above I have heard some of the details discussed in eth MSM. My understanding is that the loan guarantee was conditional; had McCain not won either NH or Iowa he would only then need pledge his public financing as a guarantee.

McCain won, the public financing was never used as a guarantee. FEC can't even meet, much issue any rulings at this time. IMO< the whole issue about McCain and the FEC is going nowhere.

Fern

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: craftech
The New York Times, Newsweek, as well as most of the news networks are guilty of perpetrating this lie.

The reference has been to a questionnaire generated by the Midwest Democracy Network:

-snip-

This, McCain's failure to sign the pledge, I have not heard of.

BTW: Hillary is not forcing Obama out of public campiagn funds by continuing her candidacy. I'm pretty sure the primary and the general election are treated as two seperate events. IIRC, you can participate in public funding in one, and forgo in the other.

The only people who should be concerned about any Obama "pledge" are Repubs. I am registered Repub and don't give a crap about this. I'd rather politicians used private money instead of taxpayer funds, even if it means the Dems will have a huge cash advantage. And I respect the fact that Obama has gathered this huge amount of money from mostly small donors and not PACs (like Hillary). I really admire it and find nothing bad about it in any way.

Fern

 

[Farang]

Obama made a mistake with the pledge, but he'd have to be an idiot to give up his massive money advantage. Democrats would accuse him of throwing the election. Also, because his money advantage comes from mostly small donors it doesn't bother me. This is the way money should be used in politics--massive popular movements with many small donors pushing their favored candidate to frontrunner status. Had he bailed on his pledge and been going to $2,500/plate fund raisers with big shots, then I'd say it was wrong for him to back off.. but do you guys really expect him to return all those $100 checks he has got from middle America?

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: JS80
There are plenty of Law Corporations. XYZ, A Law Corporation.

I believe that most if not all law firms are LLPs, which are not corporations.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: JS80
There are plenty of Law Corporations. XYZ, A Law Corporation.

I believe that most if not all law firms are LLPs, which are not corporations.

I think you're mostly correct.

Law firms love throwing out partners in a dispute or for money. You can't throw out shareholders.

Fern

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: JS80
There are plenty of Law Corporations. XYZ, A Law Corporation.

I believe that most if not all law firms are LLPs, which are not corporations.

I think you're mostly correct.

Law firms love throwing out partners in a dispute or for money. You can't throw out shareholders.

Fern

There are generally fairly strict rules in regards to what forms of entities lawyers and other professionals (doctors, accountants, etc) can form. The corporation most people think of are publicly owned, run by a management team, etc. but even a professional corporation does not fall into that category (which is something professionals are allowed to form).

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: JS80
There are plenty of Law Corporations. XYZ, A Law Corporation.

I believe that most if not all law firms are LLPs, which are not corporations.

I think you're mostly correct.

Law firms love throwing out partners in a dispute or for money. You can't throw out shareholders.

Fern

There are generally fairly strict rules in regards to what forms of entities lawyers and other professionals (doctors, accountants, etc) can form. The corporation most people think of are publicly owned, run by a management team, etc. but even a professional corporation does not fall into that category (which is something professionals are allowed to form).

In my state (NC) there's nothing that I know of preventing lawyers, or any other professional from utilizing the corporate form.

If the company hame had the words "attorney at law, lawyers" etc, it would have to file as a PC (professional corporation). What this basically means is an extra form to be completed and filed along with the usual incorp (reg corp or LLC) documents. The extra form lists/names all the shareholders and the NC Bar would have to sign off saying that all were licensed to practice law in the state etc.

The law firm across the hall from me is a P.C. (incorporated as an LLC and taxed as an S-corp).

I've also got a doctors group that is a regular corporation (but here again, since "Physician" etc is in their name they had to prove that they were licensed and must use the term "P.C." in their name instead of just "Inc." etc.

The only real meaning to a "PC", other than the inconvenience of an extra form, is that liability is not fully limited as in other/regular corporations. In NC being incorporated cannot shield you from personal liability in malpractice suits if you're in a licensed profession (lawyers, CPAs, physicians, chiropractors).

Fern

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: JS80
There are plenty of Law Corporations. XYZ, A Law Corporation.

I believe that most if not all law firms are LLPs, which are not corporations.

I think you're mostly correct.

Law firms love throwing out partners in a dispute or for money. You can't throw out shareholders.

Fern

There are generally fairly strict rules in regards to what forms of entities lawyers and other professionals (doctors, accountants, etc) can form. The corporation most people think of are publicly owned, run by a management team, etc. but even a professional corporation does not fall into that category (which is something professionals are allowed to form).

In my state (NC) there's nothing that I know of preventing lawyers, or any other professional from utilizing the corporate form.

If the company hame had the words "attorney at law, lawyers" etc, it would have to file as a PC (professional corporation). What this basically means is an extra form to be completed and filed along with the usual incorp (reg corp or LLC) documents. The extra form lists/names all the shareholders and the NC Bar would have to sign off saying that all were licensed to practice law in the state etc.

The law firm across the hall from me is a P.C. (incorporated as an LLC and taxed as an S-corp).

I've also got a doctors group that is a regular corporation (but here again, since "Physician" etc is in their name they had to prove that they were licensed and must use the term "P.C." in their name instead of just "Inc." etc.

The only real meaning to a "PC", other than the inconvenience of an extra form, is that liability is not fully limited as in other/regular corporations. In NC being incorporated cannot shield you from personal liability in malpractice suits if you're in a licensed profession (lawyers, CPAs, physicians, chiropractors).

Fern

Are P.C.s allowed to register securities for public sale or is it more of shares being distributed to insiders so that it's similar to splitting ownership interest in a partnership. I ask mainly because you seem to have fairly in depth knowledge of this.