Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It's not your decision anyway, don't worry about it...
We're not supposed to worry about corruption of the system?!?!
Why do you start now?
Transparently Corrupt: Links between Obama
White House Cronyism Is Disturbing, But Not New - Tad DeHaven - Townhall Conservative Columnists - Page 1
Amazingly, Obama has declared that all the projects received funding “based solely on their merits.” But as Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, “Throw Them All Out,” fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department’s grants and loans went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.” Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion. Obama said this week it’s not the president’s job “to make a lot of money for investors.” Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine.
EDITORIAL: Obama's crony capitalism - Washington Times
Vulture Capitalism? Try Obama's Version
And if the other 99% of us cannot purchase the elections, I guess that just leaves us with the option of public protests, until the 1% shuts those down, then the whole thing goes up in flames.
We're not supposed to worry about corruption of the system?!?!
Why do you start now?
Transparently Corrupt: Links between Obama
White House Cronyism Is Disturbing, But Not New - Tad DeHaven - Townhall Conservative Columnists - Page 1
Amazingly, Obama has declared that all the projects received funding based solely on their merits. But as Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, Throw Them All Out, fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Departments grants and loans went to individuals who were bundlers, members of Obamas National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion. Obama said this week its not the presidents job to make a lot of money for investors. Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine.
EDITORIAL: Obama's crony capitalism - Washington Times
Vulture Capitalism? Try Obama's Version
I question some of Obama's actions, but unfortunately this kind of stuff isn't new. Remember the secret participants who drew up our energy policies, who just happpened to be profitteers of the said national policy?
Obama and previous adminstrations and congress have all have increasingly have been lead by the nose by Big Money. We have entered the stage of Plutocracy.
Look at Paul Ryan's budget, a perfect example of another step in plutocracy. The wealthy benefit as do Corporate America and the rest pay for it. Hey, and people actually support this and think it's a great deal, even though a huge majority of the supporters will be getting fucked over.
And let's also be honest here, it's not just the GOP who is sucking up to Big Money, the Democrats never saw a big donor they didn't just love and bend over to please.
The system is corrupt, thanks to having a dominant two party system.
Right now, more than 80 percent of the money raised by superPACs has gone to pro-GOP groups. And, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, 80 percent of all the money raised by these groups has come from just 100 individuals the wealthiest people in America.
Outside Money Making The Race A Rich Man's Game : NPR
For all of you math majors out there that means 64% of all the superPAC money raised thus far has come from 100 individual donors and has gone to pro-GOP groups.
Is spending money a right? We're talking about free speech. When that much money is thrown around, it's no longer free.
Actually, spending money can be the exercise of ones freedom of speech and freedom of association. If I can afford to purchase a billboard, or radio time, or TV time to promote one candidate over another, why shouldn't I be allowed to do that? Why should I not be allowed to spend as much of my own money as I want to in support of a candidate that I agree with? As long as I don't ask for special favors from said candidate, what am I doing that is wrong?
How's that working? That's the whole point. Favors ARE being asked for and granted.
End Citizens United. Public financing all the way.
I have mixed opinions about this.
On the one hand, I don't want billionaires buying special favors from politicians via campaign contributions.
On the other hand, it's their money, shouldn't they be allowed to spend their money however they want to?
I have mixed opinions about this.
On the one hand, I don't want billionaires buying special favors from politicians via campaign contributions.
On the other hand, it's their money, shouldn't they be allowed to spend their money however they want to?
It's not your decision anyway, don't worry about it...
We're not supposed to worry about corruption of the system?!?!
I have mixed opinions about this.
On the one hand, I don't want billionaires buying special favors from politicians via campaign contributions.
On the other hand, it's their money, shouldn't they be allowed to spend their money however they want to?
I feel the same way. It's not the billionaires' fault that this ends in bad legislation for Main St. No one is holding a gun to the politicians' heads forcing them to pass the bills.
Right now, more than 80 percent of the money raised by superPACs has gone to pro-GOP groups. And, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, 80 percent of all the money raised by these groups has come from just 100 individuals the wealthiest people in America.
Outside Money Making The Race A Rich Man's Game : NPR
For all of you math majors out there that means 64% of all the superPAC money raised thus far has come from 100 individual donors and has gone to pro-GOP groups.
I have mixed opinions about this.
On the one hand, I don't want billionaires buying special favors from politicians via campaign contributions.
On the other hand, it's their money, shouldn't they be allowed to spend their money however they want to?
I feel the same way. It's not the billionaires' fault that this ends in bad legislation for Main St. No one is holding a gun to the politicians' heads forcing them to pass the bills.
People on this board often bitch and moan about lobbyists and large political contributors. It is still the politician that casts the vote.
I have mixed opinions about this.
On the one hand, I don't want billionaires buying special favors from politicians via campaign contributions.
On the other hand, it's their money, shouldn't they be allowed to spend their money however they want to?
I feel the same way. It's not the billionaires' fault that this ends in bad legislation for Main St. No one is holding a gun to the politicians' heads forcing them to pass the bills.
People on this board often bitch and moan about lobbyists and large political contributors. It is still the politician that casts the vote.
Outside Money Making The Race A Rich Man's Game : NPR
For all of you math majors out there that means 64% of all the superPAC money raised thus far has come from 100 individual donors and has gone to pro-GOP groups.
Support public financing of elections. It'll cost us less in the long run.
While I don't like the idea of giving the government more authority, I have to agree. On balance, publicly-funded elections would be a net positive. I would add strict term limits to complete the package, to minimize the control that politicians and the moneyed few have over us.
I know the arguments against this. But the facts remain:
- Elected officials spend a great deal of time raising money rather than doing their job;
- Elected officials are paid-off servants to their highest bidders;
- Elected officials are controlled by a very small percentage of people;
- Elected officials make decisions based on pleasing their contributors, not on our best interests;
If this is okay with some of you, fine; not with me.
.
And if the other 99% of us cannot purchase the elections, I guess that just leaves us with the option of public protests, until the 1% shuts those down, then the whole thing goes up in flames.
I feel the same way. It's not the billionaires' fault that this ends in bad legislation for Main St. No one is holding a gun to the politicians' heads forcing them to pass the bills.
People on this board often bitch and moan about lobbyists and large political contributors. It is still the politician that casts the vote.
There's always going to be someone looking to buy favors with their wealth. But us little people are the ones constantly reelecting these politicians that are screwing us over, so who's REALLY at fault here?
Right now, more than 80 percent of the money raised by superPACs has gone to pro-GOP groups. And, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, 80 percent of all the money raised by these groups has come from just 100 individuals the wealthiest people in America.
Outside Money Making The Race A Rich Man's Game : NPR
For all of you math majors out there that means 64% of all the superPAC money raised thus far has come from 100 individual donors and has gone to pro-GOP groups.
Support public financing of elections. It'll cost us less in the long run.