Well that's the problem.  Corporate personhood isn't LITERALLY corporations are people.  That's just the way it's framed by people to make it seem ridiculious.

Corporate Personhood is the belief that people should not be deprived of human rights when they work collectivly.

For example, I should be able to say something negative about the government as a private citizen, and I should also be allowed to say something negative about the government as a spokesman for McDonalds.

Without corporate personhood, Mcdonalds could be fined for talking bad about the government, and I could even be thrown in jail, because I was talking for mcdonalds, who doesn't have a right to free speach.

This is exactly the precedent you would set if you rule corporations don't have a right to free speech.  (Which is what this corporate personhood arguement involving campagin funding is about.)

You know, much of the problems with the world aren't because of Corporate Personhood, they're because of corrupt Governments.

One can argue that with corruption, it takes two to tango. One to bribe, and one to be bribed. However, if the Governments were limited on what they can be bribed about, then there would be no need to bribe.

In Citizens United, it was determined that money is free speech and that corporate entities couldn't be restricted on what they spend to impact a political campaign.  That is what the main issue was about.  Today any form of bribery now takes place in the form of campaign contributions.

Yes, but if the Congress and the President stuck to the constitution, what would there be to bribe them about, this is the point I was trying to make.

Lets also not forget that corporations soul purpose is to turn profits and it's greed has been shown to surpase it's ability to turn away from quick profits that hurt everyone down the line, even them. However the CEO of companies do this for there bonuses for bending to the shareholders and not the workers needs or rights. For this reason there used to be a law against CEO's making these bonuses.

We can also go back and point at the deregulation of Glass Steagal as the reason the banks got to greedy and had to borrow 7,770,000,000,000 Dollars from the federal reserve. A-hum Looks at the sub prime loan mess.
People say regulation hurts competition but regulation protects it's investers and clients from the evils of what, for example,what the banks have done.  This is one of the biggest reasons for the crash in 2008.

The 30 years of reagans views has destroyed the middle class and pushed greed to the front of the decision making.

Reaganomics as many called his policies were all about deregulation and what is called 'trickle down economy'.
By leaving business alone and giving tax cuts to business owners, then business will thrive and the effect will trickle down to the average citizens. Trickle down economy relies on Business to care for the workers and the nation in general and putting the welfare of the country in the hand of business rather than in the hand of the people.

Business as an entity is an inmoral beast with only one sole purpose of existence, to make profit and more profit. It's not necessarily evil, but with only one goal of it's existence, welfare of the workers or nation will obviously be on the bottom of the list.

Reagan also the one that conciously didn't want to use the antitrust sherman act. to prevent the forming of giant corporation that are too bigh to fail (which is the main crux of the economic crisis today)

BTW, the one that advocated deregulation of transportation first was Jimmy Carter.
http://economics.about.com/od/government…

That all being said, while Reagan is the one that started this whole trickle down economy that caused this whole mess, the Democrats  are not free of blame.

Reagan and Bush Sr. obviously go with the trickle down economy system. But it was Clinton that actually let it happen at a full scale, and it Clinton too that 'kicked' the trade door with China wide open instead of closing the gaps opened by Reagan.

I am an independent that leans progressive, I call it as it is (something that Fox News and Druggie Limbaugh followers seems unable to do)

Trickle down economy started by Reagan
Unenforced antirtrust Sherman Act (passed by Republican John Sherman) by Reagan a move supported by Alan Greenspan
The opening wide of trade door with China (unequal partnership) by Clinton
Clinton push for home ownership for minorities
Another push for trickle down economy again by Bush Jr.
"Ownership society" by Bush Jr. (this one is like the steroid pumped version of Clinton's)
Crazy spending by Bush Jr.

All those above are the main causes of our economy meltdown.

When Reagan came into office, America was the largest exporter of manufactured items and the largest importer of raw materials.
Right now American manufacturing capacity is basically nearly non-existent in most part.

Something similar to new deal has to be passed, a safeguard and a regulated economic playground has to be set.
Unregulated economy does not work, not on this scale. If you notice anyway, whenever they give example of unregulated economy, they can only refer to ages long long time ago and the model only work in a small close knit society.

Just for the record I see Bernie Sanders as one the best Senators of our time and someone the country should be looking at as a example.

Heres a good read

http://www.examiner.com/liberal-in-orlando/rich-tax-cuts-capital-gains-ronald-reagan-and-the-destruction-of-america

The growing gap between the rich and poor in the United States has widened over the last three decades. The once proud and strong middle class has deteriorated over time, and things need to drastically change if America wants to get back to the "good old days". When Ronald Reagan was elected president, he started the United States on a path of economical and social destruction. In his first four years in office, from 1980 to 1984, Reagan lowered the top income tax bracket from 70% to 50%. In the next four years, Reagan took the top bracket from 50% down to a dangerously low 28%. Reagan went on to triple the national debt, borrow from the Social Security trust fund to make up for his loses and went on to raise taxes eleven times primarily on the middle class.

Ronald Reagan isn't the only one who is to blame for the shrinking middle class. One major part that isn't talked about is capital gains. The Capital Gains tax is the tax put on the wealth that an individual has that is not part of their regular income. Stocks, bonds and real estate are prime examples of what is considered capital gains. While Reagan did lower the top capital gains rate from 28% in 1980 down to 20% by 1986, he did feel the pressure of the debt crisis and brought it back up to 28% by the time he left office. The two big cuts that followed were disastrous. In his first term, President Bill Clinton raised the top rate slightly to 29% but in his second term, with a conservative congress at his throat, lowered the rate once again down to 21%. The economy was doing well, mainly because of the Dot Com bubble and Clinton raising the top tax rates for the highest earners, but things did change once he left office. As part of George Bushes major tax cuts, he lowered the top tax rates down to 35% but took the capital gains rate down to its lowest level since the start of the Great Depression, 15%.

At the low rate of only 15%, the wealthiest Americans pay the same tax rate as a greater at Walmart. The Republican reasoning is that if you give the wealthy the tax cuts, they will then create jobs , which in turn, will strengthen the economy. The problem with this logic is that it doesn't work, at least not in the way they say. The wealthy primarily do two things with their tax cuts. They either create jobs outside of the United States and pay for cheap labor or they take advantage of the capital gains rate. The wealthy put their money into the stock market or real estate and pay a very low tax rate which hurts the economy instead of helping it. In President Obama's new American Jobs Act, the President has called for an end of corporate loop holes and an increase in the top tax rates. There are tax cuts in the plan, but they are tax cuts and credits that will be put into the hands of the real people who will invest and create jobs, the middle class and small businesses.

By increasing the tax rates on the highest earners, including the capital gains rate, the United States will have the revenue to truly get back on track. What the Republicans don't understand is that the best way to chop away at the debt is putting people back to work and getting money into the hands of people who will actually spend it instead of stuffing it into a stock or putting it into an off shore bank account. While President Obama's Stimulus package in 2009 put a cork into a sinking boat, it didn't fix the problem. The stimulus bill prevented unemployment from reaching 12 and 13% and did create and save over 3 million jobs that otherwise would have been lost, however it wasn't large enough. The President understands that the country wants investment but also wants to see that it will be paid for and not just put on the country's credit card. By raising the revenue from the people who have cheated the country for decades, the United States could raise its head up once again.

Ok.... I can tell you haven't really paid much attention to this stuff until very recently.

First off, a corporation's first job is to not wipe itself out... profits are second... and they achive profits by acting how their consumers want.  If people wanted more starbucks and Ben and Jerry's.... we'd have more Stabucks and Ben and Jerrys.

Secondly reganomics and capital gains has shit all to do with the gini coefficent going up.

New Zealand has a more regressive tax code then we do and has ZERO capital gains taxes, yet their gini coeeficent remains stable.  Hell, just about every single country in the world has a lower capital gains tax, and a HIGHER income tax rate then us... AND much larger regressive sales taxes.  Yet they all have lower gini coefficents.  Why do you think that is so?

What causes the difference between the rich and the poor in the us is transformative assets.

Well... that the fact that medium skilled labor is eaisly automated while service sector and "high level" sector economics are hard to automate.  Whole accouning departments can be replaced by one guy with MS Excel or Turbo Tax.

Well those and illegal immigration.   Illegal immigrants are counted in terms of the census.

There are 48 Million people in this country living under the poverty line... and 12 million Illegal aliens... almost all of which by default live under the poverty line because they can't get a job legitamitly.   Throw in 4 million children of illegal immigration, and you've literally got a huge underclass of 16 million people who can't move up by default.  Essentially a hidden underclass that greatly throws a monkey wrench into our numbers.

Some studies put it as high as 17% of the country having one illegal immigrant parent.  Which puts HUGE penalties on those who do as far as getting wealth because of a complete lack of transformative assets.

Considering 50% of people in the bottom quartile move up.  That means about 8 million people in poverty today will likely still be in poverty 10 years from now as far as people with the chance to move up.  Which isn't bad at all.

The gini coefficent is growing but at the same time, upword and downward mobility is the same as it's always been.

Also... no putting money in the stock market does not hurt the economy.  I can't even begin to understand why you would thin that.  EVERYONE wants capital gains taxes lower, including democrats because it HELPS the economy... that and unlike say, working an hourly wage, investment has actual risk which could involve losing instead of gaining money.

In short.  If you actually care about income equality.  It would be worth studying income inequality, rather then try and blindly throw scapegoats at a wall without even considering the positions of those who are poor and what keeps a person poor vs what moves a person up in society.

As support i'd point to the Gini coefficent vs Illegal immigration % numbers.  Which are fairly consistant outide of the South.  Which also happens to have a lot of African Americans, who thanks to the past effects of slavery are way behind the way of transformative assets and in general a supportive family system ( See: Shapiro,  The Hidden Cost of being African American.  http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Cost-Being-African-American/dp/019515147X)

VS

Also worth noting... 54% of americans have money in the stock market.

This is down from a high of 67%  Either way if this was the true cause of income disparity, we would be seeing an INCREASE of the middle class with a heavy decrease of income in the lower half. 

Which we obviously aren't.

Oh and additionally 90% of job creation occurs AFTER a company forms an IPO, aka gets on the stock market.  IPO's over the last ten years have GREATLY reduced due to new regulations.  If your goal is to create jobs, then you want to put more money INTO the stock market.  Not take money out of it.

Why the hell do the illegal immigrants in the centre flood to Illinois?

I'd guess because Illegal immigrants can't get jobs legally, so they rely on "service" sector jobs that can pay under the table more eaisly.

Either that or just illegal immigirant friendly legistlation.  They just recently passed their own version fo the DREAM act to provide illegal immigrants with tution to go to college.  So it'd stand to reason they are friendlier to illegal immigartion then most states.

Though really, the Dream act is nothing but a cruel joke by well meaning people.  As once you get your education... you are stuck working the same crappy jobs you always worked because there aren't exactly a high number of under the table college degree jobs.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=thom+hartmann&view=detail&mid=9CCCFDF8E5CDCAC27E6C9CCCFDF8E5CDCAC27E6C&first=0&FORM=LKVR27