A good way to solve the budget crisis......

[Mr. Shaman]

So..........you guys think that corporations should be allowed to buy our government and not pay taxes on the money spent?

You've almost got it right.

Corporations (i.e. 1%ers/high-roller$) buy the government....and, afterwards....eliminate taxes (for themselves).​

 

[ABikerSailor]

It's unconstitutional? It's up to you to provide the link Taz.

 

[Avatar4321]

So they masses aren't fit to govern themselves?

At the moment, that is the ultimate question isn't it? Some of us are trying to govern ourselves. Others have outsourced their responsibilities to the government and then whine when things don't turn out nicely.

We need to change this by fighting a real culture war, not with laws, but by changing our lives and helping others likewise govern themselves.

 

[Avatar4321]

It's unconstitutional? It's up to you to provide the link Taz.

Regulating political speech, which campaign donations are an expression of, is unconstitutional under the First amendment and has been for decades.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It's unconstitutional? It's up to you to provide the link Taz.

Citizens United v FEC

 

[ABikerSailor]

It's unconstitutional? It's up to you to provide the link Taz.

Regulating political speech, which campaign donations are an expression of, is unconstitutional under the First amendment and has been for decades.

How is it regulation? If you want to donate more than 5,000 you should be required to pay a 10 percent surcharge.

It's not saying what you can and can't say.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

How is it regulation? If you want to donate more than 5,000 you should be required to pay a 10 percent surcharge.

It's not saying what you can and can't say.

If you're penalized for saying it, it's regulation, dumb ass. Anyway, it doesn't matter because your stupid idea will never be law anyhow. Go back to the bong and shut up.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

A good way to solve the budget crisis......

I never could figure-out what the difficulty was.

Why not do the same as what people have always suggested (regarding legislation, in-general); deal with each, on it's own merit....rather than "bundling".

Why Congress STILL hasn't managed that....regarding legislation....doesn't make a whole-lotta-sense.

*

Anyhow, with spending....take the largest-output....

....DEFENSE....

.....and, work our way down-the-list.

Figure-out what you NEED....then, cut-the-"fat"....one item, at a time.

Making overall-cuts is merely a convenient way for individual-politicians to DODGE explaining their vote (for, or against) any individual area-of-spending. Life SHOULDN'T be made that convenient, for them.....not with the income they're pulling-down!!!​

 

[kiwiman127]

Campaign donations are part of free speech.
The government cannot require someone to pay a tax in order to exercise their rights.

They can talk all they want, nobody's stopping them.

But when it comes to handing over huge sums of money to gain political influence, that's another story all together.

I'll say again:

Campaign donations are part of free speech.

So, no, its NOT another story all together.

I disagree, Washington is "For Sale" and lobbyist are buying. I don't see anything "free" there.

"We, the People" are getting shouted down by Big Money and this isn't good for democracy and the General Welfare of "We the People". A good example is industry trying to get rid of EPA regulations governing our country's drinking water. Despite these regulations, people are still getting sick and dying every year. For the General Welfare of the people, stricter regulations should be enacted. after all, people are still dying and getting sick. But if industry has their way, "We the People's" General Welfare will become endangered.
The Citizens United decision was based on ideology and not the objectivity we are supposed to have within the judicial system. This case was judicial activism in action.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's unconstitutional? It's up to you to provide the link Taz.

Regulating political speech, which campaign donations are an expression of, is unconstitutional under the First amendment and has been for decades.

How is it regulation? If you want to donate more than 5,000 you should be required to pay a 10 percent surcharge.

It's not saying what you can and can't say.

You cannot impose a tax on the exercise of a right.
Doing so violates the constitution.
This is old, settled, law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They can talk all they want, nobody's stopping them.

But when it comes to handing over huge sums of money to gain political influence, that's another story all together.

I'll say again:

Campaign donations are part of free speech.

So, no, its NOT another story all together.

I disagree, Washington is "For Sale" and lobbyist are buying. I don't see anything "free" there.

You are deliberatly misusing the term "free" in order to make your point.
Not very clever.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So..........you guys think that corporations should be allowed to buy our government and not pay taxes on the money spent?

Free speech.
Everyone has the right, both individually, and as a group of individuals.

 

[kiwiman127]

I'll say again:

Campaign donations are part of free speech.

So, no, its NOT another story all together.

I disagree, Washington is "For Sale" and lobbyist are buying. I don't see anything "free" there.

You are deliberatly misusing the term "free" in order to make your point.
Not very clever.

I sed the term in context for making my point, which you didn't address.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I disagree, Washington is "For Sale" and lobbyist are buying. I don't see anything "free" there.

You are deliberatly misusing the term "free" in order to make your point.
Not very clever.

I sed the term in context for making my point, which you didn't address.

Then you did not actually respond to -my- point, and are talking about a seperate issue, eliminating any necessity for my response.

 

[Toronado3800]

I am not scared of changing the constitution if something appears to be a good thing. Document has needed updated a few time and has been "ammended in effect" a few more.

Still I would settle on "if corporations are human enough to have the right to free speech then it follows corporations (board members who run them) can be punished or executed for the corps commit".

Apply it to the Pinto fuel tank experience and you have a better world.